Martin Willett wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >>Why be Thankful? M. Willett BA, 2006, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> >>alt.food.vegan,
> >>
> >>What do you mean by be thankful? I do not believe in anything that needs
> >>to be thanked or appeased for the survival of my species. If I am not
> >>grateful or thankful the reality is the same. Mankind has survived. Not
> >>eating animals is not paying back any debt. Not eating animals earns us
> >>no credit. There is no balance sheet. There is no avenging god or alien
> >>butcher from hell going to make us pay for our sins. If you don't eat
> >>meat all that happens is you don't eat meat.
> >>
> >>I don't believe in gods or karma or some Earth Spirit, and if you do
> >>believe in such things that belief does not make it so, for you or for
> >>anybody.
> >>
> >>If you don't want to eat animals that is a choice you are free to make
> >>but don't expect to be treated as a heroine for trying to impose your
> >>morality and your reasoning on the rest of humanity.
> >
> >
> > Who said anything about imposing? Imposing is when you attempt
> > to vandalise, blackmail or intimadate people. You should stop
> > equating expressions of one's opinions with attempts to impose one's
> > will upon others.
> >
> >
> >>Treating others as you would like to be treated makes sense when you are
> >>dealing with agents capable of understanding your behaviour and
> >>reciprocating. Animals don't understand and cannot reciprocate. The
> >>universe does not understand and cannot reciprocate either.
> >
> >
> > The same argument could be made of young children. The suggestion
> > is that the rationale for apparant consideration of other humans is
> > mere self interest - nothing to do with their emotional and physical
> > needs that are equally as important as your own. It is a very selfish
> > philosophy if you don't mind me saying so.
>
>
> The difference is that children can come to reciprocate. Animals cannot
> reciprocate and will never be able to.
>
> Yes, the reason to be polite and civilized and caring is that it is in
> our best interests.

Not necessarily. It is in our interests for others to be polite,
civilized and
caring towards us and most of the time it is in our interests to
*appear*
to be polite, civilized and caring.

> If we all act this way everybody wins. Any system
> that relies on people going beyond mutually beneficial cooperation into
> the territory of self-sacrifice will fail when people decide they see no
> good reason to be selfless. You can't make people care any more than you
> can make people love you.

One can promote selflessness as a virtue. Whether others chose to
follow
is up to them.
>
> People have attempted to make other people care, they have invented
> karma and gods and the afterlife and similar kinds of bullshit to
> justify acting unselflessly towards people animals and the universe in
> general. But again you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. It
> is infinitely better not to lie to people but to treat them as adults
> and to explain the benefits, and the limits, of mutually beneficial
> cooperation.
>
> >
> >>What goes around goes around and what comes around comes around. You
> >>can't make your life better by propitious sacrifices to an uncaring
> >>universe. Sacrificing eating animal products doesn't buy you any favours
> >>except with the minority of people who think like you do. If you don't
> >>eat meat you are just as likely to have your carrots nibbled by rabbits
> >>and your lettuces chewed by slugs.
> >>
> >>Lifestyles truly worth emulating don't need to be promoted. If your
> >>lifestyle was truly superior people would notice.
> >
> >
> > Not necessarily. The point is the positive aspect of meat eating,
> > eg the fact that most people find the experience enjoyable is
> > highly obvious whereas the negative aspects are "hidden".
> >
> > Farm animals can lead very good lives where they are free to
> > pursue all their natural behaviours while being provided with
> > food, shelter and care. On marginal land of low utility value
> > they can be a useful means of turning biomass we can't
> > use into biomass that we can. In well managed, organic
> > agriculture they can feed off forage and waste products while
> > providing fertilizer, mechanical power, pest and weed control.
>
> I agree totally.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately this is not the way the majority of the meat
> > in the devoloped world is farmed. Animals are housed
> > intensively, confined to cramped barren areas where
> > their basic freedoms are severely restricted. Generations
> > of selective breeding and other measures to stimulate
> > over production are another serious welfare concern.
> > For example, lameness is a common problem for
> > broiler chickens as their muscle weight grows faster than
> > their skeletons can support. In some cases this leads
> > to death from being unable to reach the water trough.
> > Ammonia and hock burns from squatting in dirty litter
> > are also very common. Similarly for dairy cows the
> > Farm Animal Welfare Council estimates instances of
> > Mastisis at 35 cases and lameness at 54.6 new cases
> > per 100 cows per annum.
> >
> > The system also represents an extremely inefficient use
> > of arable land. Many different figures are given depending
> > on sources but even according to the figures quoted by
> > the US National Cattleman's Beef Association it takes
> > 4.5 kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef from a feedlot.
> > Comparisons concerning fresh water and energy are similarly
> > unfavourable.
> >
> > Meanwhile the animal waste, rather than increasing the fertility
> > of the land is now serving as a major contributor to major
> > environmental problems like acid rain, global warming and
> > water pollution. Even in extensive systems overgrazing is
> > causing significant damage.
> >
>
> I have no arguments with any of that. I do not support factory farming
> and a cheap-food-at-any-cost policy.
>
> >
> >>There, a proper citation. That should be convincing eh?
> >>
> >>You just want people to beat themselves up about food. Guilt is
> >>unhealthy. If you feel guilt about eating meat don't eat it. But to
> >>force that guilt onto other people is an aggressive act, for want of a
> >>better term I would call it an act of evil.
> >
> >
> > To my way of thinking, modern industrial methods of animal
> > rearing are an absolute scandal and the only reason people
> > are raising animals in such a fashion are because they are
> > being paid to produce cheap meat. Collectively, as consumers,
> > we have the power to stop this simply by boycotting the
> > industry, either in favour of free range organic meat or in favour
> > of all-plant food diets.
> >
> > It is absurd to think that you should consider presenting this
> > case to be an act of evil - simply an attempt to make you feel
> > guilty. After all we are not trying to persuade you to become
> > a conflicted omnivore!
>
> I do not see the connection between opposing cruel farming methods and
> the promotion of vegetarianism and veganism. If my shoes let in water I
> don't decide God meant me to go barefoot.

That is a good analogy. I should have kept my argument more general.
I find the suggestion that it is evil for one to present the case
against
an activity, (for example meat eating) if one considers that activity
to be immoral. Pearl is not trying to get you to feel guilty about
eating
meat but proud about not eating it.
>
> The strategy I favour is to take the promotion of globalism and
> democracy and the rejection of racism and nationalism to its natural
> conclusion: a global democracy capable of setting decent standards
> across the board. Without the bogey of foreign competition (if we don't
> do it those other *******s will) there is no reason why we have to allow
> cruel or wasteful techniques of food production to continue.

I concur with that vision. I detest the vision of globalisation that
the
WTO appears to favour.
>
> If you make ten people feel guilty about meat for every one you get to
> make a change in their lifestyle you are committing an evil act.

I don't even think that equation works out from a utilitarian
perspective.

> You
> might justify that to yourself by saying they are in denial and you have
> no sympathy for their plight and they are heartless *******s and you
> hate them for their hypocrisy ...

No such justifications are necessary.

> and so you reveal yourself to be
> nastier than the carnivores because you are deliberately and consciously
> inflicting suffering (mental anguish, the pain of a conscience eating
> away from the inside) on sentient beings with the same capacity to
> suffer as yourself. Eating meat or milk does not involve deliberately
> causing suffering

No it doesn't but it does fuel demand for the product and so cause
suffering indirectly and assuming this meat or milk comes from
an unknown source it is probable that the level of suffering involved
is impossible to justify morally (in my opinion).

> whereas trying to convert an omnivore into a veg*n
> does involve a systematic attempt to cause them distress.

Not really. It is more an attempt to educate them into making
better choices as dictated by their consciences.

> You speculate
> about a chicken's ability to suffer but you absolutely know what kind of
> suffering you can inflict by making a person choose between bacon and Babe.

I don't agree that it is cruel or immoral but I do think that
attempting
to make a person choose between bacon and Babe is
counterproductive because the major problem is methods of animal
farming rather than the farming per se. Switching from cheap
factory meats to free range organic meats makes a major
difference and I think the idea of spending more money on food
is rather less scary to most people in Europe and America than
the idea of giving up meat and dairy altogether. It could even be
argued that giving people the false dilemma between inappropriate
mehtods of animal farming and veganism is doing a disservice to
both animals and the environment.

"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > <..>
> > > If you are not interested in anybody else's opinions there is no point
> > > in debate.
> > >
> > > I was interested in *your* opinions and how you could defend them but
> > > all you offered was quotes and citations,
> >
> > Scientific research. No one is interested in opinions alone here.
>
> The question is how does a lay person establish the truth from a sea of
> unmoderated information such as the internet. One possibility is to do
> an in depth study searching for and carefully scrutinizing *all* the
> available
> relevant information in an objective manner. Realistically this process is
> likely to be excessively time consuming so I generally prefer to rely on
> authorities who appear to have been through the above process
> themselves.
>
> Now perhaps I am being unfair here but it looks to me like you
> generally
> do neither but post information that as Martin astutely puts it is
> "more for support than illumination". Forming an opinion on the
> efficacy of animal experimentation or the nutrional merits of meat
> based on sources referenced by animal rights literature is a little
> like giving a verdict in a criminal trial entirely on the basis of the
> prosecution's evidence.

The usual weak ad hominem; for lack of a real argument.

Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
where it was published, although much (most) is from source.

You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.

pearl wrote:

> You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.
>
>
>

Is this aimed at mankind in general? I assume it must be.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Is this aimed at mankind in general? I assume it must be.

Another great example of how you wilfully and intentionally
misinterpret what is said; twisting meaning in order to spin.

It is certainly aimed at you.

> --
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org

pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is this aimed at mankind in general? I assume it must be.
>
>
> Another great example of how you wilfully and intentionally
> misinterpret what is said; twisting meaning in order to spin.
>
> It is certainly aimed at you.
>

Lighten up.

If it helps you get the right impression of me imagine me typing with my
dimples showing and a cheeky grin rather than with horns and blood
dripping from my teeth.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/martinj...hellopearl.jpg

I'm not evil. I'm just smarter than you are. I am making allowances for
you, please try to make allowances for me.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Martin Willett wrote:

> pearl wrote:
>
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is this aimed at mankind in general? I assume it must be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another great example of how you wilfully and intentionally
>> misinterpret what is said; twisting meaning in order to spin.
>>
>> It is certainly aimed at you.
>>
>
> Lighten up.
>
> If it helps you get the right impression of me imagine me typing with my
> dimples showing and a cheeky grin rather than with horns and blood
> dripping from my teeth.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/martinj...hellopearl.jpg
>
> I'm not evil. I'm just smarter than you are.

By itself, that's not much of an achievement ;-)

Lesley isn't unintelligent, but she *is* stupid, and
it's stupidity-by-choice. It just goes to show that
raw mental horsepower isn't by itself to be admired
much; it's what one does with it. Lesley has chosen to
**** it away on weird countercultural beliefs.

For certain, you seem to be at least as intelligent as
she is, *and* you give the appearance of putting it to
good use.


> I am making allowances for
> you, please try to make allowances for me.
>

pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > <..>
> > > > If you are not interested in anybody else's opinions there is no point
> > > > in debate.
> > > >
> > > > I was interested in *your* opinions and how you could defend them but
> > > > all you offered was quotes and citations,
> > >
> > > Scientific research. No one is interested in opinions alone here.
> >
> > The question is how does a lay person establish the truth from a sea of
> > unmoderated information such as the internet. One possibility is to do
> > an in depth study searching for and carefully scrutinizing *all* the
> > available
> > relevant information in an objective manner. Realistically this process is
> > likely to be excessively time consuming so I generally prefer to rely on
> > authorities who appear to have been through the above process
> > themselves.
> >
> > Now perhaps I am being unfair here but it looks to me like you
> > generally
> > do neither but post information that as Martin astutely puts it is
> > "more for support than illumination". Forming an opinion on the
> > efficacy of animal experimentation or the nutrional merits of meat
> > based on sources referenced by animal rights literature is a little
> > like giving a verdict in a criminal trial entirely on the basis of the
> > prosecution's evidence.
>
> The usual weak ad hominem; for lack of a real argument.

It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for
the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the
messenger's methods of reaching conclusions.

> Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
> where it was published, although much (most) is from source.

How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy?
How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is
anti-scientific?
If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information,
that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How
do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent?

> You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.

some woman deserve being eaten a few times a week :-)


Martin Willett > in :

> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us? How about swearing off
> from eating meat?
>
> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
> something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
> not to eat you?”
>
> Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
> which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
> yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
> animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
> So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
> lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
> make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
> likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
> one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
> hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like
> hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
> weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
> like deer and salmon?
> Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?

green cheese from the moon is ok.
don't eat little green aliens from mars.
don't eat anything from uranus (yeah, bad old joke, sorry)

> Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
> see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
> the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
> carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
> that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
> some sort of vegetable.

yeah, that one's a bit odd.

>I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
> that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
> change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
> a vegetarian.
>
> We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
> those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
> assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
> hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
> lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>
> Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>
> There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
> fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
> raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
> food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
> just like pigs.

ime, dogs and pigs and many "domestic" birds are omnivores.
and i suppose ruminates are actually ranchers of invertebrate prey. i wonder if cows digests the weaker dying micro-organisms,
or if *all* those little guys "go over the edge".

> I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
> regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
> or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
> and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
> just like lamb.

how surprising, some
http://www.janesoceania.com/vanuatu_tanna_visit/
say that everyone tastes like christians.


> The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
> livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
> The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
> higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
> contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
> and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
> riding them from the body is to breastfeed...

so the cannibals should have eaten the livers from only the newborn missionaries :-)

> If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
> to eat?

hg wells would be last.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...ion/0812505158

> It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
> qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
> a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
> Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
> beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC.

with hairy armpits and sandals and henna and dressed in flowers, hemp, black latex and razorblades!

>Card-carrying
> members of PETA would fetch a premium price.

yet historically christians have been favored as a meat source. hmmmm... perhaps the aliens like their meat "gamey".

> If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
> do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
> ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
> aliens. Or failing that, sausages.

yes, die young, before the aliens come to harvest you.

> Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
> being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.
>
> What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?

except that jesusallah wants your soul, not your hairy armpits. (persnikkety Feller ain't It)

> Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
> make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
> a line of bull.

a line of just one bull will stretch your stomach.

> Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?
>
> There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
> they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
> to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
> arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
> we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
> to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
> are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
> attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
> or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
> poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
> requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
> nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
> because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
> tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
> McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
> calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

the strict monetarists will be in trouble if (whichever) aliens love to feast on bars of gold.

perhaps certain aliens will have an insatiable hunger for used condoms.

> First published on http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
> posted by the author

i will not spoil "war of the worlds" for you, by telling you the ending of the tale.

bon apetit.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You are wrong, the lot of you. Get over it, and get a clue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Is this aimed at mankind in general? I assume it must be.
> >
> >
> > Another great example of how you wilfully and intentionally
> > misinterpret what is said; twisting meaning in order to spin.
> >
> > It is certainly aimed at you.
> >
>
> Lighten up.
>
> If it helps you get the right impression of me imagine me typing with my
> dimples showing and a cheeky grin rather than with horns and blood
> dripping from my teeth.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/martinj...hellopearl.jpg

"Lighten up" really applies to you, don't it. It's all that fat you eat.

> I'm not evil. I'm just smarter than you are. I am making allowances for
> you, please try to make allowances for me.

I'll call a spade a spade. You're an opinionated self-serving prat.

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
> > >
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > > <..>
> > > > > If you are not interested in anybody else's opinions there is no point
> > > > > in debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was interested in *your* opinions and how you could defend them but
> > > > > all you offered was quotes and citations,
> > > >
> > > > Scientific research. No one is interested in opinions alone here.
> > >
> > > The question is how does a lay person establish the truth from a sea of
> > > unmoderated information such as the internet. One possibility is to do
> > > an in depth study searching for and carefully scrutinizing *all* the
> > > available
> > > relevant information in an objective manner. Realistically this process is
> > > likely to be excessively time consuming so I generally prefer to rely on
> > > authorities who appear to have been through the above process
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > Now perhaps I am being unfair here but it looks to me like you
> > > generally
> > > do neither but post information that as Martin astutely puts it is
> > > "more for support than illumination". Forming an opinion on the
> > > efficacy of animal experimentation or the nutrional merits of meat
> > > based on sources referenced by animal rights literature is a little
> > > like giving a verdict in a criminal trial entirely on the basis of the
> > > prosecution's evidence.
> >
> > The usual weak ad hominem; for lack of a real argument.
>
> It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for
> the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the
> messenger's methods of reaching conclusions.

Why? Question what I post by all means, but don't lie about me.

> > Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
> > where it was published, although much (most) is from source.
>
> How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy?

Personal experience, research and observation.

> How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is
> anti-scientific?

Research. Common sense.

> If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information,
> that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How
> do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent?

If I'm unsure about something, I generally look into it further.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>If you are not interested in anybody else's opinions there is no point
> >>in debate.
> >>
> >>I was interested in *your* opinions and how you could defend them but
> >>all you offered was quotes and citations,
> >
> >
> > Scientific research. No one is interested in opinions alone here.
>
> That's just your opinion. It isn't scientific evidence, I can't see your
> citation.

Go back and see what you 'refused to read'.

> >>You repeatedly stated that humans are frugivores, which given the
> >>conventional meaning of the words 'humans', 'are' and 'frugivores' is
> >>patently not true.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .

> <snipped unread as promised>

Wilfully ignorant willett.

> You really don't get it, do you? Make your case in your words. I am not
> interested in following your links, posting such a link is wasting your
> opportunity to make the case.

Wilfully ignorant willett.

> Every one of my posts contains my words and my ideas with the minimum of
> input from elsewhere.

Go to alt.willett.

> We are not frugivores.

'.. 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

> Our ancestors left that way of life behind tens
> of millions of years ago.

'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.
...
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

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
to by physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.
As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
...'
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html

> No animal can exist as a frugivore except in a
> forest or near forest environment with year-round fruiting which can
> only happen in the tropics or sub-tropical regions. Frugivores cannot
> live in Mediterranean let alone cold temperate regions because there is
> not enough fruit available for many months of each year.

A variety of plant foods can be stored for winter use.

> >>You ignored my assertion that frugivores cannot live outside tropical or
> >>sub tropical forests, you neither acknowledged it nor refuted it.
> >
> > False. I said that these days there's nothing to prevent most
> > people from being vegan. IIRC, you basically agreed.
>
> There is nothing to stop people being vegans if they choose to be so.
> Stress on the word _choose_.

Ah yes -- that freedom which you deny other species.

> >>You refused to rise to my challenge to show examples of herbivores
> >>cooperating in food collection.
> >
> > False. You blithely dismissed the evidence given.
>
> What you presented was some badly written folksy stuff about squirrels
> with no scientific credibility, it only seemed to back your case because
> it was so sloppily written.

No it isn't.

'Squirrels are notorious because of their habit of burying nuts in the ground.
Stored nuts have no particular ownership, and the members of a squirrel
community share each other's efforts. The general position of stored food
probably is located slightly by a sense of memory, but the actual position
of individual nuts is found by a keen sense of smell. Many buried nuts are
not recovered, and a large percentage of them sprout and eventually become
trees.
...'
http://www.animals-b-gone.com/Squirr...rrel_info.html

> Squirrels do not cooperate in hiding nuts,
> they hide nuts and dig up hidden nuts by sense of smell, not always nuts
> they themselves have buried. You cannot conclude there is *cooperation*
> just by observing nut stealing without witnessing excessive retribution.

Squirrels live in communities.

> Squirrels have a high mortality rate,

Evidence for that.

> it makes sense for a squirrel to
> dig up a buried nut discovered by sense of smell even if it wasn't one
> he himself buried and it doesn't make sense to get into a fight over a
> single nut.

It makes sense for a community to share the fruits of effort.

> A strategy that works without any prior or on-going
> agreement is "bury surplus nuts near where you live, singly, remember
> where you buried them. If they are there when you need them eat them. If
> you find other nuts eat them. Don't fight over a single nut, it ain't
> worth it. Instead fight over the territory that contains the nuts,
> buried and growing alike. Only share territory with close kin, drive off
> foreigners." Those rules work, and to the untrained observer they look
> like cooperation.

Share territory, but not food, eh. That makes sense, not.

> It is always difficult to say where the following of simple hidden rules
> differs from cooperation. A herd of bison looks like it is cooperating
> against predators but the behaviour can be modelled without any
> reference to cooperation, empathy or sacrifice.

If you insist on objectifying other sentient, social, feeling creatures.

"Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in
civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and
sees thereby a feather magnified, and the whole image in distortion. We
patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken a form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err,
for the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world far older than
ours, finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have
lost or never attained, they live by voices we shall never hear. They are
not underlings. They are not bretheren. They are other nations, caught in
the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of
the earth." - from The Outermost House by Henry Beston -1928.

> >>Come on, a single counter-example in the entire animal kingdom could
> >>have destroyed my case and you could not offer one for either assertion.
> >
> >
> > False. Suggest you go back and actually *read* my post.
>
> I suggest you learn how to present a case that people will willingly
> read in the first place. There is one hell of a lot of stuff on the
> internet, to get read your stuff has to look like it is worth reading.
> Huge citations from dryly written academic studies stuffed full of
> jargon do not capture the attention of your audience, they are a massive
> turn-off, especially when they are presented with no introductions or
> explanations as to what they are, how they relate to the issue under
> debate and why they should be taken seriously. It is very easy to take
> one look at such stuff and think "Oh Christ, more of that Pearl's shite,
> I don't need this."

More of wilfully ignorant willett's anti-scientific shite.

Come on now Pearl, anybody would think you could come up with a decent
reply after *ten days*. This is not worth my time. I do this for fun,
debating with you is as much fun as detention after school.

We are not frugivores. Open your eyes and look at what we choose to eat.

You're not worth my time, your debating style is very poor, hysterical
and as appetizing as a ricecake topped with unseasoned mashed potato.

Have you no fun in your life? Are you totally without wit?

Don't think you've won just because you're still in the same place
saying the same thing and nobody is paying you any attention.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Don't let the...... oops... ta ta fat boy willett.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> Come on now Pearl, anybody would think you could come up with a decent
> reply after *ten days*. This is not worth my time. I do this for fun,
> debating with you is as much fun as detention after school.
>
> We are not frugivores. Open your eyes and look at what we choose to eat.
>
> You're not worth my time, your debating style is very poor, hysterical
> and as appetizing as a ricecake topped with unseasoned mashed potato.
>
> Have you no fun in your life? Are you totally without wit?
>
> Don't think you've won just because you're still in the same place
> saying the same thing and nobody is paying you any attention.
>
> --
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org

pearl wrote:
> Don't let the...... oops... ta ta fat boy willett.
>

You see what I mean? No wit, no grace, no style and no originality.

I'm off to find a more worthy challenge. I believe in a varied diet.
There is no fun trying to have a battle of wits when your opponent has
the same battle tactics as Monty Python's Black Knight.

The world shall hear from me again.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
> > > >
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > > > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > <..>
> > > > > > If you are not interested in anybody else's opinions there is no point
> > > > > > in debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was interested in *your* opinions and how you could defend them but
> > > > > > all you offered was quotes and citations,
> > > > >
> > > > > Scientific research. No one is interested in opinions alone here.
> > > >
> > > > The question is how does a lay person establish the truth from a sea of
> > > > unmoderated information such as the internet. One possibility is to do
> > > > an in depth study searching for and carefully scrutinizing *all* the
> > > > available
> > > > relevant information in an objective manner. Realistically this process is
> > > > likely to be excessively time consuming so I generally prefer to rely on
> > > > authorities who appear to have been through the above process
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Now perhaps I am being unfair here but it looks to me like you
> > > > generally
> > > > do neither but post information that as Martin astutely puts it is
> > > > "more for support than illumination". Forming an opinion on the
> > > > efficacy of animal experimentation or the nutrional merits of meat
> > > > based on sources referenced by animal rights literature is a little
> > > > like giving a verdict in a criminal trial entirely on the basis of the
> > > > prosecution's evidence.
> > >
> > > The usual weak ad hominem; for lack of a real argument.
> >
> > It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for
> > the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the
> > messenger's methods of reaching conclusions.
>
> Why? Question what I post by all means, but don't lie about me.

I am not lying about you. I am merely observing that the conclusions
you reach *appear* to demonstrate a certain lack of objectivity and
overreliance on sources that tell you what you want to "know".
Given that your methods of research have led you to believe that
inside of the Earth is hollow and inhabited by beings of light and
darkness you will have to accept my continued scepticism.
>
> > > Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
> > > where it was published, although much (most) is from source.
> >
> > How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy?
>
> Personal experience, research and observation.

I'm still no nearer to understanding.
>
> > How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is
> > anti-scientific?
>
> Research. Common sense.

Common sense tells me that scientists would be more likely
to research using methods they consider effective. How does
your common sense tell you that animal experiments have
nothing to teach us?

> > If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information,
> > that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How
> > do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent?
>
> If I'm unsure about something, I generally look into it further.

Of course you do. The question is how do you become so sure in
things that closed minded people like me would dismiss out of hand?

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
<..>
> > > It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for
> > > the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the
> > > messenger's methods of reaching conclusions.
> >
> > Why? Question what I post by all means, but don't lie about me.
>
> I am not lying about you. I am merely observing that the conclusions
> you reach *appear* to demonstrate a certain lack of objectivity and
> overreliance on sources that tell you what you want to "know".

You'd like me to argue against myself? I'll leave that to you.

> Given that your methods of research have led you to believe that
> inside of the Earth is hollow

'Seismic waves travelled through the planet for weeks as
Earth rang like a bell from the shock of the Alaska earthquake,
wrote Doug Christensen, associate director of the University
of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. '
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1689.html

'In terms of the planet, Dr McQueen compares the difference
between the magnitude 9.0 quake and more common large
quakes to "tapping a bell with a spoon and belting it with a
hammer".
http://tinyurl.com/b5mnw

'Common to all bells is their hollow form, ...'
http://www.msu.edu/~carillon/batmbook/chapter4.htm

What's your theory to explain this phenomenon, Dave?

> and inhabited by beings of light and darkness

The belief is as ancient as it is universal.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner4.htm

> you will have to accept my continued scepticism.

Because I don't blindly accept 'established' but unproven dogma?

The irony.

> > > > Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
> > > > where it was published, although much (most) is from source.
> > >
> > > How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy?
> >
> > Personal experience, research and observation.
>
> I'm still no nearer to understanding.

I was raised on a meat-centric diet and was suffering from
some form of arthritis by age eighteen. I recovered from the
condition after I became vegetarian. Also, looking at available
clinical and epidemiological studies, and direct observation.

HTH.

> > > How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is
> > > anti-scientific?
> >
> > Research. Common sense.
>
> Common sense tells me that scientists would be more likely
> to research using methods they consider effective.

You would think so, wouldn't you. Common sense tells me
and others, that results from other species, who react differently,
and made to suffer artificially-induced disorders, are in no way
transferable to human beings with a 'naturally'-occuring disease.
Believing otherwise has led to the current sorry state of affairs.

> How does your common sense tell you that animal experiments have
> nothing to teach us?

It may teach you about that species, or more accurately, that individual.

> > > If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information,
> > > that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How
> > > do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent?
> >
> > If I'm unsure about something, I generally look into it further.
>
> Of course you do. The question is how do you become so sure in
> things that closed minded people like me would dismiss out of hand?

By actually examining the evidence.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> pails -> pales
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> <..>
> > > > It is relevant ad hominem. I am not attacking the messenger for
> > > > the sake of attacking the messenger. I am questioning the
> > > > messenger's methods of reaching conclusions.
> > >
> > > Why? Question what I post by all means, but don't lie about me.
> >
> > I am not lying about you. I am merely observing that the conclusions
> > you reach *appear* to demonstrate a certain lack of objectivity and
> > overreliance on sources that tell you what you want to "know".
>
> You'd like me to argue against myself? I'll leave that to you.
>
> > Given that your methods of research have led you to believe that
> > inside of the Earth is hollow
>
> 'Seismic waves travelled through the planet for weeks as
> Earth rang like a bell from the shock of the Alaska earthquake,
> wrote Doug Christensen, associate director of the University
> of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. '
> http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1689.html
>
> 'In terms of the planet, Dr McQueen compares the difference
> between the magnitude 9.0 quake and more common large
> quakes to "tapping a bell with a spoon and belting it with a
> hammer".
> http://tinyurl.com/b5mnw
>
> 'Common to all bells is their hollow form, ...'
> http://www.msu.edu/~carillon/batmbook/chapter4.htm
>
> What's your theory to explain this phenomenon, Dave?

I'll leave that to the scientists.

> > and inhabited by beings of light and darkness
>
> The belief is as ancient as it is universal.
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner4.htm
>
> > you will have to accept my continued scepticism.
>
> Because I don't blindly accept 'established' but unproven dogma?
>
> The irony.

Touche. I still can't take these ideas seriously though.

> > > > > Virtually everything I cite is from authoritative sources no matter
> > > > > where it was published, although much (most) is from source.
> > > >
> > > > How did you reach the conclusion that meat was unhealthy?
> > >
> > > Personal experience, research and observation.
> >
> > I'm still no nearer to understanding.
>
> I was raised on a meat-centric diet and was suffering from
> some form of arthritis by age eighteen. I recovered from the
> condition after I became vegetarian.

That suggests (but doesn't prove) that the diet you adopted when
you became vegetarian was better suited to your body's needs than
the diet you had previously.

> Also, looking at available
> clinical and epidemiological studies,

I have not scrutinized any of these studies and just rely on the
advice of groups I rightly or wrongly assume to be authorities
on the subject. I am not in a position to argue the point.

>and direct observation.

As in what you have learnt as a reflexologist?

> HTH.

To some extent.

> > > > How did you reach the conclusion that animal testing is
> > > > anti-scientific?
> > >
> > > Research. Common sense.
> >
> > Common sense tells me that scientists would be more likely
> > to research using methods they consider effective.
>
> You would think so, wouldn't you. Common sense tells me
> and others, that results from other species, who react differently,
> and made to suffer artificially-induced disorders, are in no way
> transferable to human beings with a 'naturally'-occuring disease.
> Believing otherwise has led to the current sorry state of affairs.

Common sense tells me that there are some biochemical
similarities between species and it seems plausible that
animal experiments may be able to yield clues regarding
the treatment of humans.

> > How does your common sense tell you that animal experiments have
> > nothing to teach us?
>
> It may teach you about that species, or more accurately, that individual.

Yes.

> > > > If you look in the right place you can find plenty of information,
> > > > that sounds authoritative, for *or* against all of these claims. How
> > > > do you assess which are genuine and which are fraudulent?
> > >
> > > If I'm unsure about something, I generally look into it further.
> >
> > Of course you do. The question is how do you become so sure in
> > things that closed minded people like me would dismiss out of hand?
>
> By actually examining the evidence.

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > pails -> pales
> >
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

I talk you.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> pails -> pales
>>>
>> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
>
> I talk you.
>
You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

On 12/28/2005 9:22 AM, ****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of
fighting birds, lied:

> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:19:11 GMT, "S. > wrote:
>
>
>> This false belief that it is better to exist than never
>> to exist leads to an infamous bit of illogic called the
>> Logic of the Larder, taken from the title of a famous
>> essay on this very topic.
>
> You're referring to an "ARA's" fantasy about what
> HE/YOU/"ARAs" feel a pig would say if it could, and
> if it knew it was raised by humans, and that humans
> would kill it, and butcher it, and eat it, and it even knew
> about ham and sausages

It is a didactic fable. You're too dense to know what that is. It is
irrelevant that pigs can't talk or that they don't know why they exist.
The pig in the fable is speaking for Salt. Salt is telling "the
philosopher" that his rationalization for what he's doing to the pig is
philosophical nonsense. The "Logic of the Larder" - the belief that
causing animals to exist is a benefit to them - is invalid. It doesn't
matter if the exposition of the invalidity is in the form of a fable
with a talking pig, or in a dry scholarly paper. The exposition is the
same in either case, or in any other case: the belief that some
"benefit" conferred on the pig by causing it to exist in some way
mitigates the harm inflicted on the pig by killing it is illogical
nonsense. It's actually worse than that: it is immoral.