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
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default mindless vegan petro-chemical whore without a clue...


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The meat industry must be desperate to come up with all kinds
> of wacky
> claims about the "evils" of not eating meat produced by cruel
> and
> unhealthy factory farming and slaughterhouses. All people have
> to do is
> to look at videos of cruelly cages animals and the filth and
> cruelty
> that goes on in the slaughterhouses. It is impossible to argue
> against
> the evidence and that is the reason for the wacko arguments.
> Does it
> work for anyone other than those working for the meat or
> rendering
> industry?
> ==========================

Thanks for again proving your hatred and delusions, hypocrite!
Keep up the good work.





>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole
>> > Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are
>> > ready to
>> > eat some.

>> ====================
>> Thanks for yet again proving that you care nothing about
>> unnecessary animals death and suffering, hypocrite. Keep up
>> the
>> good work! It's vegan loons like you that will prove to
>> everyone
>> how depraved the adherents to a disorder are, killer.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> "ant and dec" > wrote
>> >> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >> Martin Willett wrote:
>> >> >> >>> ant and dec wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards?
>> >>
>> >> >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the
>> >> >> >> humour
>> >> >> >> lecture you just gave us:-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this
>> >> >> > case
>> >> >> > to test a
>> >> >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > response.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > a 'joke';
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's
>> >> >> > played
>> >> >> > on him.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort,
>> >> >> his
>> >> >> humor used
>> >> >> general definitions.
>> >> >
>> >> > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at
>> >> > the
>> >> > expense
>> >> > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at
>> >> > the expense
>> >> > of Martin.
>> >>
>> >> The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as
>> >> Liberals, or gays, is
>> >> a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of
>> >> that group.
>> >> Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from
>> >> calling a person
>> >> a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain
>> >> that
>> >> to you Dave.
>> >

>



  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default meat industry shills

This meat industry shill (rick==Dutch) stated dirt after my first post.
When I had enough, I made t the mother ****er eat some of his own dirt.

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > The meat industry must be desperate to come up with all kinds
> > of wacky
> > claims about the "evils" of not eating meat produced by cruel
> > and
> > unhealthy factory farming and slaughterhouses. All people have
> > to do is
> > to look at videos of cruelly cages animals and the filth and
> > cruelty
> > that goes on in the slaughterhouses. It is impossible to argue
> > against
> > the evidence and that is the reason for the wacko arguments.
> > Does it
> > work for anyone other than those working for the meat or
> > rendering
> > industry?
> > ==========================

> Thanks for again proving your hatred and delusions, hypocrite!
> Keep up the good work.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole
> >> > Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are
> >> > ready to
> >> > eat some.
> >> ====================
> >> Thanks for yet again proving that you care nothing about
> >> unnecessary animals death and suffering, hypocrite. Keep up
> >> the
> >> good work! It's vegan loons like you that will prove to
> >> everyone
> >> how depraved the adherents to a disorder are, killer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> >> "ant and dec" > wrote
> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Martin Willett wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the
> >> >> >> >> humour
> >> >> >> >> lecture you just gave us:-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this
> >> >> >> > case
> >> >> >> > to test a
> >> >> >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > response.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> > a 'joke';
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's
> >> >> >> > played
> >> >> >> > on him.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort,
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> humor used
> >> >> >> general definitions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > expense
> >> >> > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at
> >> >> > the expense
> >> >> > of Martin.
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as
> >> >> Liberals, or gays, is
> >> >> a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of
> >> >> that group.
> >> >> Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from
> >> >> calling a person
> >> >> a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain
> >> >> that
> >> >> to you Dave.
> >> >

> >


  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default mindless meat industry shill whore without a clue...

This meat industry shill (rick==Dutch) stated dirt after my first post.
When I had enough, I made t the mother ****er eat some of his own dirt.

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > The meat industry must be desperate to come up with all kinds
> > of wacky
> > claims about the "evils" of not eating meat produced by cruel
> > and
> > unhealthy factory farming and slaughterhouses. All people have
> > to do is
> > to look at videos of cruelly cages animals and the filth and
> > cruelty
> > that goes on in the slaughterhouses. It is impossible to argue
> > against
> > the evidence and that is the reason for the wacko arguments.
> > Does it
> > work for anyone other than those working for the meat or
> > rendering
> > industry?
> > ==========================

> Thanks for again proving your hatred and delusions, hypocrite!
> Keep up the good work.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Dutch==rick the same mother ****ing asshole
> >> > Do not start dirt you mother ****ing asshole unless you are
> >> > ready to
> >> > eat some.
> >> ====================
> >> Thanks for yet again proving that you care nothing about
> >> unnecessary animals death and suffering, hypocrite. Keep up
> >> the
> >> good work! It's vegan loons like you that will prove to
> >> everyone
> >> how depraved the adherents to a disorder are, killer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> >> "ant and dec" > wrote
> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Martin Willett wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> ant and dec wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> Martin Willett wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> How about a Willett of cowards?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> What (apart from the obvious) is your problem?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> He's just demonstrating that he learnt from the
> >> >> >> >> humour
> >> >> >> >> lecture you just gave us:-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Exactly. - It's also useful, as demonstrated by this
> >> >> >> > case
> >> >> >> > to test a
> >> >> >> > person's hypothesis by reflecting it back and gauging
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > response.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > He dishes out undeserved derogatory collectives nouns
> >> >> >> > as
> >> >> >> > a 'joke';
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Derogation richly deserved, as you are demonstrating.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > yet is less willing to see that 'joke' when it's
> >> >> >> > played
> >> >> >> > on him.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You used his Proper Name in your slimy low-blow retort,
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> humor used
> >> >> >> general definitions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What differenece does it make? Martin's joke was made at
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > expense
> >> >> > of all vegans. Ant and Dec's counterjoke was made only at
> >> >> > the expense
> >> >> > of Martin.
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference is, a joke made about a group, such as
> >> >> Liberals, or gays, is
> >> >> a parody on attitudes or ideas that are arguably typical of
> >> >> that group.
> >> >> Implying that vegans in general are smug is a far cry from
> >> >> calling a person
> >> >> a coward by his name. I can't believe I needed to explain
> >> >> that
> >> >> to you Dave.
> >> >

> >


  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> got -> gotten


It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:

US: get-got-gotten
UK: get-got-got

You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.


> it's -> its
>


A typo.
  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>> got -> gotten

>
> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>
> US: get-got-gotten
> UK: get-got-got
>
> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>



Just in case you want some evidence:

Also, the past participle gotten is rarely used in modern British
English (although it is used in some dialects), which generally uses got
(as do some Americans), except in old expressions such as ill-gotten
gains. Commonwealth usage retains the form forgotten, though.
Furthermore, according to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "The
form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North
American English, though even there it is often regarded as
non-standard." In North America, most people who use gotten also use
got, with gotten emphasizing the action of acquiring, and got tending to
indicate simple possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...sh_differences


  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" > wrote
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>> got -> gotten

>
> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>
> US: get-got-gotten
> UK: get-got-got
>
> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>
>
>> it's -> its
>>

>
> A typo.


Don't pretend to be perfect. Inserting an apostrophe thus creating an
alternate word can't logically be called a typo. Its a "mistake", a common
one I make regularly. A typo is accidentally hitting the n when you meant to
hit the m, not using the wrong form of a word.


  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> got -> gotten

>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>>
>> US: get-got-gotten
>> UK: get-got-got
>>
>> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>>
>>
>>> it's -> its
>>>

>> A typo.

>
> Don't pretend to be perfect. Inserting an apostrophe thus creating an
> alternate word can't logically be called a typo. Its a "mistake", a common
> one I make regularly. A typo is accidentally hitting the n when you meant to
> hit the m, not using the wrong form of a word.


Grow up Dutch, you're making yourself look a fool.

Typographical error:

A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing
process. The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger and
also mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance. However, it's
common to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to describe instances
of poor spelling, punctuation or grammar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error

"A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but
you try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.

_Empty_and_hollow._


>
>

  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> got -> gotten

>>
>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:

*In* Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:

Another typo!


>>
>> US: get-got-gotten
>> UK: get-got-got
>>
>> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>>

>
>
> Just in case you want some evidence:
>
> Also, the past participle gotten is rarely used in modern British
> English (although it is used in some dialects), which generally uses got
> (as do some Americans), except in old expressions such as ill-gotten
> gains. Commonwealth usage retains the form forgotten, though.
> Furthermore, according to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "The
> form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North
> American English, though even there it is often regarded as
> non-standard." In North America, most people who use gotten also use
> got, with gotten emphasizing the action of acquiring, and got tending to
> indicate simple possession.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...sh_differences

  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "ant and dec" > wrote
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>> got -> gotten
>>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>>>
>>> US: get-got-gotten
>>> UK: get-got-got
>>>
>>> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>>>
>>>
>>>> it's -> its
>>>>
>>> A typo.

>>
>> Don't pretend to be perfect. Inserting an apostrophe thus creating an
>> alternate word can't logically be called a typo. Its a "mistake", a
>> common one I make regularly. A typo is accidentally hitting the n when
>> you meant to hit the m, not using the wrong form of a word.

>
> Grow up Dutch, you're making yourself look a fool.


Prefacing your responses with that kind of stale remark is trite and
transparent. It's the most common form of defensiveness seen on usenet.

Also beware of the tendency to reveal yourself with your reactions.

> Typographical error:
>
> A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing process.
> The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger and also
> mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance. However, it's common
> to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to describe instances of poor
> spelling, punctuation or grammar.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
>
> "A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but you
> try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.


No, a valid point.

If you meant to acknowledge that it was an example of poor spelling,
punctuation or grammar then what was the point of the reply?

As in a lot of such cases, it's not the error that is significant, it's the
attempt to cover it over that is most revealing of one's character.

You are demonstrating that you have an inflated ego that doesn't react well
to criticism.



  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" > wrote
> ant and dec wrote:
>> ant and dec wrote:
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>> got -> gotten
>>>
>>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:

> *In* Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>
> Another typo!


No, the first one, "it's" was simply a grammatical error.




  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:
> * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
> the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
> nutrient needs.


a tautology

> * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> animal-based food.


a tautology--one can live healthily for many months on an all-meat
diet, as well.

> * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
> salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.


The littler the benefit omnivores such as us will get therefrom, as
they cannot be as digestible. Why does Moby lisp so much?

> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
> > But I have not been shown any
> > good reason why anybody should place such restrictions on their diet and
> > their freedom.

>
> In addition to the terrible suffering inflicted on sentient creatures
> and harm to the environment, you are causing harm to yourself.
>
> '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

[snip]
See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats. The
diseases come from milk and fat, and not from /fleshes/. I hear that
buffalo is lean and good...

> > That would not have happened without a change in diet
> > that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason
> > that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit.

>
> Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for
> animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential;
> when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain.


"foraging parties"? Hmm, it sounds like they would need parties only
if the worts were hard to find, and these'd only be hard to find if
these were few or far between or rare--none of these could feed the
crowd.

> > Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation,

Yuck, yams and mangos are cloying.
> > language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey
> > or hunting a buffalo does.

>
> The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods
> involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed.


sometimes

-Aut

  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:
> > "My best advice to you would be carry on. Your propaganda isn't working"
> >
> > 5)What propaganda of mine?

>
> Second person plural, not singular. It is a design fault of the language
> we are stuck with. The propaganda what yous lot put out. Savvy?


That would be "ye". No, it's a flaw of the illiterates, including you
and pearl, who are a'perpetuating the downfall of yer own speech.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+%22past+participle%22&qt_s=Search>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+got+gotten&qt_s=Search>

Frosend unbelongings such as overlier French vowels in Latin words such
as "color"; stop froa'dropping words' endings to tell each part of
speech such as "gotten"; and dash daft elisions of Latin words where
none are needen.

<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/search?group=sci.physics&q=Autymn+hunten+OR+Rosett a+OR+birdless&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group>

-Aut

  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > got -> gotten

>
> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>
> US: get-got-gotten
> UK: get-got-got
>
> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.


I have no country, and you've demonstrate that you are a prejudicate
liar:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>.

I know oodles more and manier and better than you.

-Aut

  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:
> >> badges. It is totally disingenuous to make out that vegetarians and
> >> vegans do not want people to think they are morally superior because of
> >> their diet, in exactly the same way that Christians do. People who
> >> expect recognition for their moral probity make a point of not asking
> >> for it but that doesn't mean they do not expect to get it and are hurt
> >> when they don't get it.

> > Unless you can give some evidence that this applies to the general
> > ve*gan population, I must consider this as a figment of your imagination.


> I have already explained why I can't prove it. But neither can anybody
> prove that there is or isn't a god. Just because something can't be
> proved it doesn't follow that it isn't so. I can't *prove* Elvis isn't
> running a whelk stall on Venus either.


Yes, anyone can. Anyone can prove anything known the meaning of the
words they're a'using, and of their wits and eyes and ken:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/search?group=sci.physics&q=%22Randi%27s+secretary% 22&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group>.

-Aut

  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
> > the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
> > nutrient needs.

>
> a tautology


I don't see any.

> > * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> > healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> > animal-based food.

>
> a tautology--


No.

> one can live healthily for many months on an all-meat
> diet, as well.


Ipse dixit, and false. Even truly carnivorous animals
like dogs cannot live healthily for long on meat alone.

'Scientific studies have described the "all meat disease
syndrome" in which animals fed meat alone (without the
addition of vitamins and minerals) develop soft bones,
general poor condition and sometimes die. The condition
is attributed to lack of adequate calcium, iodine and
vitamins A and B1, and to a poor calcium to phosphorus
ratio. Meat is particularly deficient in calcium. The natural
diet is far more varied. Wild dogs and cats eat not only
the meat but also the bones (rich in calcium), the organs,
and the intestines containing assorted vegetable matter.'
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/dogfood1.html

Even Atkins 'dieters' are allowed some plant foods, yet;

'Atkins "Nightmare" Diet

When Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution was first published, the
President of the American College of Nutrition said, "Of all
the bizarre diets that have been proposed in the last 50 years,
this is the most dangerous to the public if followed for any
length of time."[1]

When the chief health officer for the State of Maryland,[2]
was asked "What's wrong with the Atkins Diet?" He replied
"What's wrong with... taking an overdose of sleeping pills?
You are placing your body in jeopardy." He continued
"Although you can lose weight on these nutritionally unsound
diets, you do so at the risk of your health and even your life."
[3]

The Chair of Harvard's nutrition department went on record
before a 1973 U.S. Senate Select Committee investigating
fad diets: "The Atkins Diet is nonsense... Any book that
recommends unlimited amounts of meat, butter, and eggs,
as this one does, in my opinion is dangerous. The author
who makes the suggestion is guilty of malpractice."[4]

The Chair of the American Medical Association's Council on
Food and Nutrition testified before the Senate Subcommittee
as to why the AMA felt they had to formally publish an
official condemnation of the Atkins Diet: "A careful scientific
appraisal was carried out by several council and staff members,
aided by outside consultants. It became apparent that the
[Atkins] diet as recommended poses a serious threat to health."
[5]

The warnings from medical authorities continue to this day.
"People need to wake up to the reality," former U.S. Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop writes, that the Atkins Diet is
"unhealthy and can be dangerous."[6]

The world's largest organization of food and nutrition
professionals,[7] calls the Atkins Diet "a nightmare of a diet."
[8] The official spokesperson of the American Dietetic
Association elaborated: "The Atkins Diet and its ilk--any eating
regimen that encourages gorging on bacon, cream and butter
while shunning apples, all in the name of weight loss--are a
dietitian's nightmare."[9] The ADA has been warning Americans
about the potential hazards of the Atkins Diet for almost 30 years
now.[10] Atkins dismissed such criticism as "dietician talk".[11]
"My English sheepdog," Atkins once said, "will figure out
nutrition before the dieticians do."[12]

The problem for Atkins (and his sheepdog), though, is that the
National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific
body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA
in opposing the Atkins Diet.[13] So does the American Cancer
Society;[14] and the American Heart Association;[15] and the
Cleveland Clinic;[16] and Johns Hopkins;[17] and the American
Kidney Fund;[18] and the American College of Sports Medicine;
[19] and the National Institutes of Health.[20]

In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental
or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization
in the world that supports the Atkins Diet.[21] As a 2004
medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter
to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations."[22]

A 2003 review of Atkins "theories" in the Journal of the American
College of Nutrition concluded: "When properly evaluated, the
theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books...
rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes
and non-science rhetoric. This review illustrates the complexity
of nutrition misinformation perpetrated by some popular press
diet books. A closer look at the science behind the claims made
for [these books] reveals nothing more than a modern twist on
an antique food fad."[23]
....'
http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

The fact is, (chronic degenerative ... )
'.. 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

> > * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
> > salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

>
> The littler the benefit omnivores such as us


Humans are a frugivorous species.

> will get therefrom, as
> they cannot be as digestible. Why does Moby lisp so much?


Humans have teeth with which to crush and pulp food;
breaking indigestable plant cell walls, releasing nutrients.

And your 'digestible' animal proteins?

'A carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent
putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters
however, secrete a much less concentrated and less abundant
quantity of hydrochloric acid that does not curtail the bacterial
decomposition of flesh: a process that begins at the animals
moment of death. Flesh is digested in an acid medium within
the stomach. Humans secrete a very weak concentration of
hydrochloric acid relative to the carnivore, and little of the
protein-splitting enzyme pepsin. Carnivorous animals have
concentrations of these flesh-digesting secretions 1100%
greater than do humans.
...
The intestine of the carnivore is short and smooth in order to
dissolve food rapidly and pass it quickly out of the system
prior to the flesh putrefying. The human digestive tract is
corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long
as possible until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the
worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of
flesh foods. Meat moves quickly through the carnivores
digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy
intestine cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and
dairy very quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods
decrease the motility of the human intestine and putrefaction
almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools
and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so
slowly. In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is also common, both of
which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered
around raw fruits and vegetables.
....'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> > http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
> > > But I have not been shown any
> > > good reason why anybody should place such restrictions on their diet and
> > > their freedom.

> >
> > In addition to the terrible suffering inflicted on sentient creatures
> > and harm to the environment, you are causing harm to yourself.
> >
> > '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

> [snip]


Typical.

> See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats. The
> diseases come from milk and fat,


There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.

> and not from /fleshes/.


And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.

> I hear that buffalo is lean and good...


'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria
in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein
into toxic amines or ptomaines, such as cadaverine (from lysine),
agmatine (from arginine), tyramine (from tyroseine), putrescine
(from orithine) and histamine (from histidine). And these amines
are "powerful vasopressor substances". Tryptophan undergoes
a series of reactions to form indole and methylindole (skatole),
which produces the distinctive putrefying faecal smell of a high
protein diet. The sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and
methionine) are transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and
methyl mercaptan as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these
compounds are very poisonous and unpleasant.
Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats, breaks down into
choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine. This is
evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores do not
produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead, some still
contains sufficient nutrients to warrant eating again, as with
rabbits.
...
A high protein food at least doubles the quantity of protein that
is potentially subject to putrefication in the bowels. Worse still,
the reason that plant protein is less digestible is because it is
found in the tough cellulose walls of plant cells which pass
through the gut undigested if not sufficiently masticated.
These proteins are not available as soil for putrefying bacteria
in the bowel. Animal protein wastes are highly bioavailable to
putrefying bowel bacteria since they have no cellulose cell wall.
It seems that only putrefying bacteria benefit from the "highly
digestible" animal proteins.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/3t7qn

> > > That would not have happened without a change in diet
> > > that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason
> > > that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit.

> >
> > Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for
> > animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential;
> > when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain.

>
> "foraging parties"? Hmm, it sounds like they would need parties only
> if the worts were hard to find, and these'd only be hard to find if
> these were few or far between or rare--none of these could feed the
> crowd.


'par·ty
n. pl. par·ties
...
1.b A group of people who have gathered to participate in an activity.
...
3.a A person or group involved in an enterprise; a participant ..
...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parties

> > > Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation,

> Yuck, yams and mangos are cloying.
> > > language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey
> > > or hunting a buffalo does.

> >
> > The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods
> > involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed.

>
> sometimes
>
> -Aut
>





  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
> > > the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
> > > nutrient needs.

> >
> > a tautology

>
> I don't see any.


You would if you understood your own words.

> > > * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> > > healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> > > animal-based food.

> >
> > a tautology--

>
> No.


Yes.

> > one can live healthily for many months on an all-meat
> > diet, as well.

>
> Ipse dixit, and false. Even truly carnivorous animals
> like dogs cannot live healthily for long on meat alone.


You proven liar, dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores. And bones
and marrow are a meat, so your blurb is irrelevant.

> Even Atkins 'dieters' are allowed some plant foods, yet;
>
> 'Atkins "Nightmare" Diet


This one suffers from my later comment about fat and milk. Go away
whither you get a brain. I don't uphold Atkins's diet either.

> > > * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
> > > salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

> >
> > The littler the benefit omnivores such as us

>
> Humans are a frugivorous species.


Then why don't some humans eat fruits? Are they not humans, retard?
Humans are omnivorous.

> > will get therefrom, as
> > they cannot be as digestible. Why does Moby lisp so much?

>
> Humans have teeth with which to crush and pulp food;
> breaking indigestable plant cell walls, releasing nutrients.
>
> And your 'digestible' animal proteins?


Worts would be more digestible if we still had wisdom teeth and
appendix, but we don't. We moved on from ruminants.

> 'A carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent
> putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters


Stomach acid is good for killing germs; it's part of immunity to
botulism and the ilk.

> prior to the flesh putrefying. The human digestive tract is
> corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long
> as possible until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the
> worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of
> flesh foods. Meat moves quickly through the carnivores


Humans not having ready fangs or spades must deal with less and fewer
food.

> digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy
> intestine cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and
> dairy very quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods
> decrease the motility of the human intestine and putrefaction
> almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools
> and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
> by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so
> slowly. In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
> meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is also common, both of
> which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered
> around raw fruits and vegetables.


Putrefaction is done away with by drinking less to have greater acid.
Of course, one needn't eat as much flesh as worts to get the same
nutrition, so gutly backup happens in the overgrown. Inner germs wreak
many cancers; kill them early and most will be fine.

> > > '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

> > [snip]

>
> Typical.


Don't cascade.

> > See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats. The
> > diseases come from milk and fat,

>
> There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.


Saturated fat is good:

The Truth About Saturated Fat,
<http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm>.

The health problems most have happen in the poor, who thrive on cheap
starches and fats (oils in this case). There are pricier but better
choices in both the fleshly and wortly.

> > and not from /fleshes/.

>
> And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.


The many is "fleshes", dolt.

> > I hear that buffalo is lean and good...

>
> 'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria
> in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein

(rebutted bacteria argument)

(snipped robotic output)
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parties


-Aut

  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>> got -> gotten

>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>>
>> US: get-got-gotten
>> UK: get-got-got
>>
>> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.

>
> I have no country,


No, you made an arrogant and ignorant assumption.


>and you've demonstrate


Good English!


that you are a prejudicate
> liar:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>.


What lie?


>
> I know oodles more and manier and better than you.
>
> -Aut
>



You are an arrogant and careless little girl.

  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "ant and dec" > wrote
>>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>>> got -> gotten
>>>> It Britain the form I used is perfectly acceptable:
>>>>
>>>> US: get-got-gotten
>>>> UK: get-got-got
>>>>
>>>> You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the use of British English.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it's -> its
>>>>>
>>>> A typo.
>>> Don't pretend to be perfect. Inserting an apostrophe thus creating an
>>> alternate word can't logically be called a typo. Its a "mistake", a
>>> common one I make regularly. A typo is accidentally hitting the n when
>>> you meant to hit the m, not using the wrong form of a word.

>> Grow up Dutch, you're making yourself look a fool.

>
> Prefacing your responses with that kind of stale remark is trite and
> transparent. It's the most common form of defensiveness seen on usenet.
>
> Also beware of the tendency to reveal yourself with your reactions.
>
>> Typographical error:
>>
>> A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing process.
>> The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger and also
>> mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance. However, it's common
>> to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to describe instances of poor
>> spelling, punctuation or grammar.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
>>
>> "A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but you
>> try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.

>
> No, a valid point.
>
> If you meant to acknowledge that it was an example of poor spelling,
> punctuation or grammar then what was the point of the reply?


The point was to inform you that I used the word typo as a common
euphemism, and to educate you about the use of that word.

>
> As in a lot of such cases, it's not the error that is significant, it's the
> attempt to cover it over that is most revealing of one's character.
>
> You are demonstrating that you have an inflated ego that doesn't react well
> to criticism.


Far from it; I'm doing you a favour.

>
>
>

  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Another ignorant troll.

"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
> > > > the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
> > > > nutrient needs.
> > >
> > > a tautology

> >
> > I don't see any.

>
> You would if you understood your own words.


Show where.

> > > > * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> > > > healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> > > > animal-based food.
> > >
> > > a tautology--

> >
> > No.

>
> Yes.


Show where.

> > > one can live healthily for many months on an all-meat
> > > diet, as well.

> >
> > Ipse dixit, and false. Even truly carnivorous animals
> > like dogs cannot live healthily for long on meat alone.

>
> You proven liar, dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores.


No. You're a proven ignoramus.

'The order Carnivora includes the cat, hyena, bear,
weasel, seal, mongoose, civet and dog families ..'
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

> And bones
> and marrow are a meat, so your blurb is irrelevant.


You're making up definitions to suit yourself.

meat
n.
1. The edible flesh of animals, especially that of
mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meat

flesh ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flsh)
n.
1. The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the
bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flesh

Bone marrow is not 'flesh', it is called 'bone marrow'.
Likewise for bones. Bones are not referred to as 'meat'.

> > Even Atkins 'dieters' are allowed some plant foods, yet;
> >
> > 'Atkins "Nightmare" Diet

>
> This one suffers from my later comment about fat and milk. Go away
> whither you get a brain. I don't uphold Atkins's diet either.


Your later later comment is "Saturated fat is good". Cretin.

> > > > * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
> > > > salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
> > >
> > > The littler the benefit omnivores such as us

> >
> > Humans are a frugivorous species.

>
> Then why don't some humans eat fruits? Are they not humans, retard?


Which humans don't eat any fruits? Make sure you
back up your inane claims with verifiable evidence.

> Humans are omnivorous.


Ipse dixit and false.

> > > will get therefrom, as
> > > they cannot be as digestible. Why does Moby lisp so much?

> >
> > Humans have teeth with which to crush and pulp food;
> > breaking indigestable plant cell walls, releasing nutrients.
> >
> > And your 'digestible' animal proteins?

>
> Worts would be more digestible if we still had wisdom teeth and
> appendix, but we don't. We moved on from ruminants.


We're on a 60 million year-old branch of frugivorous adaptation.

> > 'A carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent
> > putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters

>
> Stomach acid is good for killing germs; it's part of immunity to
> botulism and the ilk.


Not all, and putrefactive bacteria are already in the intestines.

> > prior to the flesh putrefying. The human digestive tract is
> > corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long
> > as possible until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the
> > worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of
> > flesh foods. Meat moves quickly through the carnivores

>
> Humans not having ready fangs or spades must deal with less and fewer
> food.


'"less and fewer". -That's- a tautology. It's also nonsense.

> > digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy
> > intestine cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and
> > dairy very quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods
> > decrease the motility of the human intestine and putrefaction
> > almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools
> > and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
> > by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so
> > slowly. In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
> > meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is also common, both of
> > which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered
> > around raw fruits and vegetables.

>
> Putrefaction is done away with by drinking less to have greater acid.


No it isn't. There are many billions of bacteria in the small
intestine and trillions upon trillions in the large intestine.

> Of course, one needn't eat as much flesh as worts to get the same
> nutrition, so gutly backup happens in the overgrown. Inner germs wreak
> many cancers; kill them early and most will be fine.


'The most common species of putrefactive bacteria is
'Escherichia coli'. In the words of Bernard Jensen,
'Escherichia coli likes protein for breakfast, lunch and dinner.'
http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=57

> > > > '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
> > > [snip]

> >
> > Typical.

>
> Don't cascade.


'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

> > > See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats.


The above is from regular meat consumption.

> > > The diseases come from milk and fat,


But now you say that "Saturated fat is good".

> > There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.

>
> Saturated fat is good:


"The diseases come from milk and fat,".

> The Truth About Saturated Fat,
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm.


'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01
for both foods).
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

> The health problems most have happen in the poor, who thrive on cheap
> starches and fats (oils in this case). There are pricier but better
> choices in both the fleshly and wortly.


People with health problems thrive?

Meat consumption is associated with disease, period.

> > > and not from /fleshes/.

> >
> > And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.

>
> The many is "fleshes", dolt.


'Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized
or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article,
and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term -
we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on
the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article
and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we
can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is
something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot.
We can count dogs but not flesh. '
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

> > > I hear that buffalo is lean and good...

> >
> > 'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria
> > in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein

> (rebutted bacteria argument)


Absolutely not.

> (snipped robotic output)


Predictable evasion.

> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parties

>
> -Aut
>



  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

>>> Typographical error:
>>>
>>> A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing
>>> process. The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger and
>>> also mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance. However, it's
>>> common to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to describe instances
>>> of poor spelling, punctuation or grammar.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
>>>
>>> "A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but
>>> you try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.

>>
>> No, a valid point.
>>
>> If you meant to acknowledge that it was an example of poor spelling,
>> punctuation or grammar then what was the point of the reply?

>
> The point was to inform you that I used the word typo as a common
> euphemism, and to educate you about the use of that word.


I meant what was the point of originally referring to the error as a "typo"?
If your meaning of typo includes a euphemistic reference to spelling and
grammatical errors then such a reply is meaningless. He was *saying* that
you made a spelling error. Obviously you meant "typo" to imply that it was
not a spelling or grammar error, but just a slip of the finger. In other
words, "ME? commit such a mistake? NEVER! C'mon fess up, you hate admitting
when you make a mistake.





  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Dutch wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:

> [..]
>
>>>> Typographical error:
>>>>
>>>> A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing
>>>> process. The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger and
>>>> also mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance. However, it's
>>>> common to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to describe instances
>>>> of poor spelling, punctuation or grammar.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
>>>>
>>>> "A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but
>>>> you try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.
>>> No, a valid point.
>>>
>>> If you meant to acknowledge that it was an example of poor spelling,
>>> punctuation or grammar then what was the point of the reply?

>> The point was to inform you that I used the word typo as a common
>> euphemism, and to educate you about the use of that word.

>
> I meant what was the point of originally referring to the error as a "typo"?
> If your meaning of typo includes a euphemistic reference to spelling and
> grammatical errors then such a reply is meaningless. He was *saying* that
> you made a spelling error. Obviously you meant "typo" to imply that it was
> not a spelling or grammar error, but just a slip of the finger.


"A typo" was used in a euphemistic sense to describe my error. You are
seeing things as YOU are not as THEY are; you do not have the ability to
determine what I meant, other than what YOU read.

What makes it obvious what I meant?

How did I imply anything by stating "A typo". - The meaning of those two
words is conjured up in YOUR mind from YOUR experience, and may have no
reference to what I meant by it. I have explained what I meant by it,
with the aid of a commonly understood and published meaning of the
phrase; accept that and stop making fool of yourself.



In other
> words, "ME? commit such a mistake? NEVER! C'mon fess up, you hate admitting
> when you make a mistake.
>
>
>

  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?


"ant and dec" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "ant and dec" > wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>>>>> Typographical error:
>>>>>
>>>>> A typographical error or typo is a mistake made during the typing
>>>>> process. The term includes errors due to slips of the hand or finger
>>>>> and also mechanical failure, but excludes errors of ignorance.
>>>>> However, it's common to find the word "typo" used as a euphemism to
>>>>> describe instances of poor spelling, punctuation or grammar.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
>>>>>
>>>>> "A typo" was used in this euphemistic sense, as I guess you know, but
>>>>> you try to score empty and hollow virtual points with it nevertheless.
>>>> No, a valid point.
>>>>
>>>> If you meant to acknowledge that it was an example of poor spelling,
>>>> punctuation or grammar then what was the point of the reply?
>>> The point was to inform you that I used the word typo as a common
>>> euphemism, and to educate you about the use of that word.

>>
>> I meant what was the point of originally referring to the error as a
>> "typo"? If your meaning of typo includes a euphemistic reference to
>> spelling and grammatical errors then such a reply is meaningless. He was
>> *saying* that you made a spelling error. Obviously you meant "typo" to
>> imply that it was not a spelling or grammar error, but just a slip of the
>> finger.

>
> "A typo" was used in a euphemistic sense to describe my error. You are
> seeing things as YOU are not as THEY are; you do not have the ability to
> determine what I meant, other than what YOU read.
>
> What makes it obvious what I meant?


The context. You had your spelling and/or grammar corrected and you shot
back with "typo". If that meant "spelling and/or grammar error" then why
would you say it?

Here's your claim:

OP: You made a spelling and/or grammar error.
You: It was a spelling and/or grammar error.

??? No make sense..

> How did I imply anything by stating "A typo". - The meaning of those two
> words is conjured up in YOUR mind from YOUR experience, and may have no
> reference to what I meant by it. I have explained what I meant by it, with
> the aid of a commonly understood and published meaning of the phrase;
> accept that and stop making fool of yourself.


You looked up that obscure definition after I nailed you. You're lying now.


>
>
> In other
>> words, "ME? commit such a mistake? NEVER! C'mon fess up, you hate
>> admitting when you make a mistake.
>>
>>


  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

>>
>>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
>>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
>>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
>>>smarter way instead of the way they did.

>>
>>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
>>them.

>
>
> Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
> developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
> better way.


There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
*moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
stopped breeding livestock.
  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >>
> >>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
> >>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
> >>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
> >>>smarter way instead of the way they did.
> >>
> >>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
> >>them.

> >
> >
> > Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
> > developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
> > better way.

>
> There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
> and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
> and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
> starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
> *moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
> animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
> and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
> stopped breeding livestock.


Cruel, unsanitary and disgusting meat production gave us bird flu and
mad cow.

  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
SlipperySlope
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
>>>>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
>>>>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
>>>>>smarter way instead of the way they did.
>>>>
>>>>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
>>>developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
>>>better way.

>>
>>There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
>>and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
>>and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
>>starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
>>*moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
>>animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
>>stopped breeding livestock.

>
>
> Cruel, unsanitary and disgusting meat production gave us bird flu and
> mad cow.


Wrong.

You're full of shit.


  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

SlipperySlope wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
> >>>>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
> >>>>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
> >>>>>smarter way instead of the way they did.
> >>>>
> >>>>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
> >>>>them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
> >>>developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
> >>>better way.
> >>
> >>There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
> >>and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
> >>and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
> >>starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
> >>*moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
> >>animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
> >>and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
> >>stopped breeding livestock.

> >
> >
> > Cruel, unsanitary and disgusting meat production gave us bird flu and
> > mad cow.

>
> Wrong.
>
> You're full of shit.


You should know asshole, shit is what you eat.

  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
SlipperySlope
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

wrote:
> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
>>>>>>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
>>>>>>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
>>>>>>>smarter way instead of the way they did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
>>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
>>>>>developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
>>>>>better way.
>>>>
>>>>There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
>>>>and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
>>>>and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
>>>>starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
>>>>*moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
>>>>animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
>>>>and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
>>>>stopped breeding livestock.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cruel, unsanitary and disgusting meat production gave us bird flu and
>>>mad cow.

>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>You're full of shit.

>
>
> You should know asshole, shit is what you eat.


Your attribution of bird flu and "mad cow" are
bullshit. You're an ignorant extremist.
  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> > I have no country,

>
> No, you made an arrogant and ignorant assumption.


Non sequitur, and what was the assumption?

> >and you've demonstrate

>
> Good English!


That's elidate Latin, not English. Get your eyes (Say it like it's
spelt, and not "Iz".) menden.

> that you are a prejudicate
> > liar:
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>.

>
> What lie?


lige, not lie

> > I know oodles more and manier and better than you.


> You are an arrogant and careless little girl.


careless (n.) -> careles (a.)
You're still a clueles liar. Get a clue, and stop a'sticking vowels
where they don't belong.

favour -> favor

Stop your French corruptions and start a'speaking more
English--English-English! Keep the tongueships sheer.

-Aut

  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>>> I have no country,

>> No, you made an arrogant and ignorant assumption.

>
> Non sequitur, and what was the assumption?
>
>>> and you've demonstrate

>> Good English!

>
> That's elidate Latin, not English. Get your eyes (Say it like it's
> spelt, and not "Iz".) menden.
>
>> that you are a prejudicate
>>> liar:
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan/browse_frm/thread/e6f91ded71191e71/e951f46c0985d830#e951f46c0985d830>.

>> What lie?

>
> lige, not lie
>
>>> I know oodles more and manier and better than you.

>
>> You are an arrogant and careless little girl.

>
> careless (n.) -> careles (a.)
> You're still a clueles liar. Get a clue, and stop a'sticking vowels
> where they don't belong.
>
> favour -> favor
>
> Stop your French corruptions and start a'speaking more
> English--English-English! Keep the tongueships sheer.
>
> -Aut
>


You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.

  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:
> Another ignorant troll.


Yes you are.

> > You would if you understood your own words.

>
> Show where.


I did.

> > Yes.

>
> Show where.


Do you even know what a tautology is, or are you but a troll?

> > You proven liar, dogs are omnivores; cats are carnivores.

>
> No. You're a proven ignoramus.
>
> 'The order Carnivora includes the cat, hyena, bear,
> weasel, seal, mongoose, civet and dog families ..'
> http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm


You're a proven sofist shithead: "Carnivora" is only a name. It
doesn't make them carnivores (a word): "Moreover, canids have a broader
appetite than is commonly realized; most include a substantial
proportion of vegetable and insect matter in their diet1."

> > And bones
> > and marrow are a meat, so your blurb is irrelevant.

>
> You're making up definitions to suit yourself.


No, I'm a comprehensive literalist. Look up the original meaning of
"meat".

> meat
> n.
> 1. The edible flesh of animals, especially that of
> mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meat
>
> flesh ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flsh)
> n.
> 1. The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the
> bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flesh
>
> Bone marrow is not 'flesh', it is called 'bone marrow'.
> Likewise for bones. Bones are not referred to as 'meat'.


Boil bones and they become soft tissue. Bone covers bone, so I win.

Marrow, meat, and pith are akin: http://dictionary.com/search?q=pith.
I win again.

> > This one suffers from my later comment about fat and milk. Go away
> > whither you get a brain. I don't uphold Atkins's diet either.

>
> Your later later comment is "Saturated fat is good". Cretin.


It's not to Atkins's, cretinose fiend. This is fat, not protein.

> > Then why don't some humans eat fruits? Are they not humans, retard?

>
> Which humans don't eat any fruits? Make sure you
> back up your inane claims with verifiable evidence.


Those who like food that comes in boxes, bags, and cans; those worthles
bodybuilders who can't afford to eat sugar; those meat-fans...

> > Humans are omnivorous.

>
> Ipse dixit and false.


Yes you are.

> > Worts would be more digestible if we still had wisdom teeth and
> > appendix, but we don't. We moved on from ruminants.

>
> We're on a 60 million year-old branch of frugivorous adaptation.


Children who drink much juice get fat and I would guess more diabetic.

> > Stomach acid is good for killing germs; it's part of immunity to
> > botulism and the ilk.

>
> Not all, and putrefactive bacteria are already in the intestines.


"digestion"

> > Humans not having ready fangs or spades must deal with less and fewer
> > food.

>
> '"less and fewer". -That's- a tautology. It's also nonsense.


No it's not.

> > Putrefaction is done away with by drinking less to have greater acid.

>
> No it isn't. There are many billions of bacteria in the small
> intestine and trillions upon trillions in the large intestine.


The more and manier there are, the better the digestion.

> > Of course, one needn't eat as much flesh as worts to get the same
> > nutrition, so gutly backup happens in the overgrown. Inner germs wreak
> > many cancers; kill them early and most will be fine.

>
> 'The most common species of putrefactive bacteria is
> 'Escherichia coli'. In the words of Bernard Jensen,
> 'Escherichia coli likes protein for breakfast, lunch and dinner.'
> http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=57


Where is your research for the other side? What fixes the
putrefaction?

> > > > See the "variety" argument of yours and apply it to meats.

>
> The above is from regular meat consumption.


yes, /meat/ (beef), not /meats/

> > > > The diseases come from milk and fat,

>
> But now you say that "Saturated fat is good".


Yes.

> > > There is at least 6% saturated fat content in lean meat.

> >
> > Saturated fat is good:

>
> "The diseases come from milk and fat,".
>
> > The Truth About Saturated Fat,
> > http://www.mercola.com/2002/aug/17/saturated_fat1.htm.


Read it, print it, copy it, send it.

> 'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
> associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
> heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
> third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
> disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
> for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
> P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no

[snip]
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S


"but these effects were reduced when subjects with a history of
cardiovascular disease or diabetes were excluded [death rate ratios
(and 95% CIs): 0.83 (0.48, 1.43) for ischemic heart disease and 1.02
(0.82, 1.27) for all causes of death]."

My link is more comprehensive, and its samples outlot and outweih
yours. I wouldn't go by the British fare, with its mineral
deficiencies and toxicities. It's a shame that your study said
/nothing/ about the cuts (any organs?), cooking, combinations (with
starches and oils?), or even the fitness of the nonvegetarians:

"When the first 5 y of follow-up were excluded from the analysis, the
death rate ratios became closer to unity and were no longer
statistically significant, partly because the smaller number of deaths
meant that the CIs were much wider [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
non-meat-eaters compared with meat eaters: 0.99 (0.76, 1.30) for all
causes of death, 0.89 (0.51, 1.54) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.89
(0.60, 1.32) for all malignant neoplasms]. These large reductions in
the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer
effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely
to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally
healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also
likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first
5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a
meatless diet. The largest benefit noted, for mortality from all
malignant neoplasms, is not in accord with the results of a recent
meta-analysis of vegetarian cohort studies (11)."

Your sample and land are a fluke: The vegetarians volunteered for the
study, who then grabbed nonvegetarians. It's a performer's effect.
Use the studies from my link of samples who didn't take a test, or
didn't know. Experiments are to be blind, dumbass. None of the
parties were--not the cancer crowd nor the vegetarian "society" and
obsociety (their friends).

> > The health problems most have happen in the poor, who thrive on cheap
> > starches and fats (oils in this case). There are pricier but better
> > choices in both the fleshly and wortly.

>
> People with health problems thrive?


It means "grow or get by quickly". They get fat and big, fast.

> Meat consumption is associated with disease, period.


No, half-arsing of meat is associate with disease:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol70/is...ge/052502.jpeg.
(And a period is an interval of time.) The body doesn't do well with
wavering or jumbling of foods: bran and wheat kill; greens kill; or
those who were already near death who ate only these died more. As for
fat from meat, come back when you get the details I wanted.

> > > > and not from /fleshes/.
> > >
> > > And you call others illiterate? The word is 'flesh'.

> >
> > The many is "fleshes", dolt.

>
> 'Mass nouns are those that cannot be semantically indefinitized
> or pluralized (that is, that cannot be used with the indefinite article,
> and for which there is no plural form). "Flesh," is a mass term -
> we would not say "a flesh," nor "fleshes." A "count" noun, on
> the other hand, is a noun that can be used with the indefinite article
> and for which there is a plural form. "Dog" is a count noun - we
> can say "a dog," or "dogs." Simply put, a count noun is
> something that can be counted; a mass term is one that cannot.
> We can count dogs but not flesh. '
> http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm


That's another "we" that I am not of. And it's descriptive, not
prescriptive or constructive.

> > (snipped robotic output)

> Predictable evasion.


evasion of irrelevant Aspergian puke, yes

-Aut



  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.


I talk so only to an obligate illiterate. Take those English
teachships I linked to, or leave. You can start by a'reading my
Credibility test.

-Aut

  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>

>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to
>>>>bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you?
>>>
>>>I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence.
>>>

>>
>>Can you prove that? Can you prove that your decision to adopt an
>>obsessional diet came *after* your obsessional interest in diet?

>
>
> Can you prove that you stopped beating your wife after
> you started on your kids? Can you prove that, troll?
>
>


I'll take that as a no shall I?

After I decided to propose to my wife I didn't *start* to take an
interest in women. After I bought my computer I didn't subscribe to a
computer magazine to help me confirm I had bought the right one. After I
bought my house I didn't arrange a dozen viewings of properties within
my price range. With me information seeking comes *before* the decision
making. I find it odd that people would make a decision and them spend
the rest of their life trying to justify it. Who are you trying to
justify it to? Do "they" really care that you found some good reasons
*after* you made your decision?

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Martin Willett wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>Have you ever been interested in anything that could not be used to
> >>>>bolster the conclusions you made before looking at any evidence?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Have you?
> >>>
> >>>I came to the conclusions I have, because of the evidence.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Can you prove that? Can you prove that your decision to adopt an
> >>obsessional diet came *after* your obsessional interest in diet?

> >
> >
> > Can you prove that you stopped beating your wife after
> > you started on your kids? Can you prove that, troll?
> >
> >

>
> I'll take that as a no shall I?
>
> After I decided to propose to my wife I didn't *start* to take an
> interest in women. After I bought my computer I didn't subscribe to a
> computer magazine to help me confirm I had bought the right one. After I
> bought my house I didn't arrange a dozen viewings of properties within
> my price range. With me information seeking comes *before* the decision
> making. I find it odd that people would make a decision and them spend
> the rest of their life trying to justify it. Who are you trying to
> justify it to? Do "they" really care that you found some good reasons
> *after* you made your decision?


You have got this issue exactly right. Lesley (the real name of
"pearl") made an *emotional* commitment to weird dietary dogma, then
has furiously worked to try to make it appear to be evidence-based.
But it's all bullshit: the dietary/religious commitment came first,
*then* the pseudo-scientific rationale for it.

  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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

>
> I talk so only to an obligate illiterate. Take those English
> teachships I linked to, or leave. You can start by a'reading my
> Credibility test.
>
> -Aut
>

You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.
  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

Autymn D. C. wrote:

>
> evasion of irrelevant Aspergian puke, yes
>
> -Aut
>


You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.


  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

More garbage from meat industry shills.

SlipperySlope wrote:
> wrote:
> > SlipperySlope wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:23:37 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>****wit David Harrison, everyday liar, lied again:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:38:14 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How do you think it could have been done smarter? Don't forget
> >>>>>>>it is as it is whether God had anything to do with it or not, so you
> >>>>>>>will have to explain how a God could have made things turn out your
> >>>>>>>smarter way instead of the way they did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If herbivores could directly digest cellulose that would be smarter for
> >>>>>>them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Before I could believe that, you would need to explain *why* things
> >>>>>developed to be as they are, and *how* God could have done it a
> >>>>>better way.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no "god" in this, ****wit. As far as you know
> >>>>and have reason to believe, wild animals just exist,
> >>>>and domestic animals are bred into existence by humans,
> >>>>starting with wild animals millennia ago. There is no
> >>>>*moral* reason to keep breeding livestock. Livestock
> >>>>animals do not "benefit" from coming into existence,
> >>>>and no animals would be deprived of anything if we
> >>>>stopped breeding livestock.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cruel, unsanitary and disgusting meat production gave us bird flu and
> >>>mad cow.
> >>
> >>Wrong.
> >>
> >>You're full of shit.

> >
> >
> > You should know asshole, shit is what you eat.

>
> Your attribution of bird flu and "mad cow" are
> bullshit. You're an ignorant extremist.


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Martin Willett
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

pearl wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>S. Maizlich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is UNDISPUTED by evolutionary biologists that meat played an
>>>>>>>indispensable role in human evolution. Meat's role was both direct and
>>>>>>>indirect. The direct role was in providing the massive amount of
>>>>>>>protein needed for brain development. The indirect role is as an
>>>>>>>organizing principle of human activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The organizational role is absolutely critical. There is no reason for a
>>>>>>vegetarian species to develop sophisticated communication because they
>>>>>>don't have anything sophisticated to communicate. Fruits and tubers
>>>>>>don't require teamwork or sophisticated tools to subdue, but our
>>>>>>ancestors brought down mammoths, give them some respect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Belittling the role of meat and hunting in evolution is as much
>>>>>>pseudo-science as creationism is. The collection of snippets of research
>>>>>>here and there that seem to offer some suggestion of support for a pre
>>>>>>decided stance is the antithesis of the scientific method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Human evolution required meat eating and hunting. That is not to say
>>>>>>that man was ever exclusively carnivorous, the only largely carnivorous
>>>>>>hominid was /Homo neanderthalensis/, who was almost as carnivorous as a
>>>>>>polar bear. But as far as anybody can tell all our direct ancestors were
>>>>>>omnivorous but more carnivorous than modern chimpanzees and that change
>>>>>>in diet was significant for the development of larger brains both in
>>>>>>allowing expansion and requiring it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"It is highly probable that plant foods were indeed the major part
>>>>>of the early hominid economy, and unequivocal evidence for hunting
>>>>>as against scavenging carrion does not appear until relatively late in
>>>>>the fossil record, probably not earlier than half-a-million years ago."
>>>>>Leakey, The Making of Mankind
>>>>>
>>>>>Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour demanding
>>>>>the development of strategic planning, whereas the folivores feeding
>>>>>behavior engages relatively simple tactics. According to Caroline E. G.
>>>>>Tutin et al. 'Allometric analyses suggest a relation between brain size
>>>>>(relative to body mass) and diet, with frugivores having relatively larger
>>>>>brains . . . Maintaining a frugivorous diet presents huge intellectual
>>>>>challenges of memory and spatial mapping compared with the relative
>>>>>ease of harvesting abundant foliage foods.' Tutin et al. also say that:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
>>>>>divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
>>>>>and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
>>>>>Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). "
>>>>>Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in
>>>>>the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions:
>>>>>Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270
>>>>>...'
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/dahps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, as I said, the collection and circulation of snippets of
>>>>information which support the stance decided upon independently of any
>>>>evidence, a stance that needs no support, is the antithesis of the
>>>>scientific method.
>>>
>>>
>>>The information is based on evidence.

>>
>>And the bit you have quoted, or re-quoted, or re-re-quoted you believe
>>supports your argument. Does the entire work?

>
>
> Yes. It certainly does. Skeletal remains from as recently as
> 12,000 years ago show that meat played a small role, if any.
>
>
>>>>The copy and paste of chapter and verse citation is absolutely typical
>>>>of the Creationist, another species of mass debater which uses
>>>>scientific research like a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than
>>>>illumination.
>>>>
>>>>Normally when I come across copy and paste citations in Creationist
>>>>rants I copy a section of the text, including the citation, and see how
>>>>many times it comes up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Waffle.

>>
>>That is a spurious accusation.

>
>
> Look, I am not interested in your personal head-trips. Ok?
>
>
>>>> "that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion" 9
>>>>hits for Google, 12 for Google Groups. It goes up to 18 if I leave out
>>>>the citation. This makes me just a tad suspicious about the quotation. I
>>>>wonder if pearl can tell me what the next chapter says? In creationist
>>>>circles quotations from scientists that can be interpreted (or
>>>>misinterpreted) as supporting their cause, however obliquely, are traded
>>>>avidly like relics of the saints and posted by people who haven't a clue
>>>>about science but know what they believe.

>
>
> More waffle. You don't like the evidence - your problem.
>
>
>>>>Our ancestors of course ate fruit for millions of years. This fruit
>>>>eating is written all over our bodies, especially in our binocular
>>>>vision and excellent colour discrimination. I don't know of any
>>>>evolutionary biologists that do not think we evolved from fruit eaters.
>>>>Of course we evolved from monkeys, and fruit-eating monkeys are smarter
>>>>than animals that eat leaves, who wouldn't expect a monkey to outwit a
>>>>sheep? But we left fruit eating behind to become omnivores. Armed with
>>>>excellent vision, grasping hands and an agile brain but lacking
>>>>offensive or defensive weaponry of any kinds a change in habitat that
>>>>led to a reduction in forests (and therefore fruit) and an increase in
>>>>open grasslands gave us a push in a new direction. We took to eating
>>>>tubers, digging them up with sticks as well as hands, we scavenged
>>>>carrion and we killed what we could catch. Over time what we could catch
>>>>got bigger, until it encompassed everything we decided we wanted to catch.
>>>
>>>
>>>'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
>>>
>>>'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
>>>

>>
>>John 11:35

>
>
> ?
>



Don't you understand how citations work? Jesus wept.

>
>>What has any of that got to do with the argument I was advancing? Are
>>you trying to demonstrate that you have a collection of quotes? I
>>suggested you would have.

>
>
> Doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions, eh. Tough.



I strongly suspect your preconceived notions are a lot more impervious
to reason than mine.

>
>
>>>>You cannot live as a fruit-eater outside of tropical forests for the
>>>>simple reason that there are no fruits available for months at a time in
>>>>most other environments. There are no fruit-dependent species of mammal
>>>>of any kind living in Europe. Temperate zone fruits do get eaten, but
>>>>not by fruit-eating specialists like monkeys, which are confined to the
>>>>tropics. As modern humans were living well outside the tropics over
>>>>100,000 years ago you can conclude that they must have had an omnivorous
>>>>diet of some kind, unless you believe breatharians are not charlatans.
>>>>They were not big game hunters but they were not vegans or fruitarians
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>
>>>These days there's nothing to prevent most people being vegan.

>>
>>Apart from the fact that they don't want to be perhaps? Does that count
>>as a reason?

>
>
> You 'don't want to', because you are addicted to animal fat.
>
> 'The Longest River: Denial
>
> Denial is a hallmark of someone who is engaging in this addiction
> pattern but has not accepted that his or her behavior is out of
> control. This denial is a psychological defense mechanism that
> enables a person to continue to engage in a behavior in spite of
> relatively obvious negative consequences on his or her life. It's
> a way to protect oneself from seeing or feeling things that are
> unpleasant.
>
> .. denial permits one to distort reality, a very powerful psychological
> defense; it can have devastating consequences on our lives, and the
> ability to disregard such negative consequences while continuing the
> behavior is a hallmark of denial.
> ...'
> http://www.addictionrecov.org/paradi...greenfield.htm.
>


You are denying the simple and obvious fact that most people on this
planet enjoy eating meat and animal based foods and are not interested
in your attempts to make them feel guilty, or small, or stupid or cruel.

>
>>Do you support freedom of choice and democracy or do you
>>think your morality and your diet should be imposed on humanity for its
>>own good?

>
>
> You don't support animals' freedom of choice; you think your 'morality'
> and your diet should be imposed on other creatures for your own good.


Yes, you're seem to be implying that is some kind of bad thing. Why? No
other animals give a shit about other species, we care far more than any
other species cares.

>
> Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you.
>


Why? What's in it for us? It makes sense to do that with intelligent
beings who have some chance of reciprocating, it makes sense to be nice
to people and intelligent aliens, it does not make sense to do it to
things that cannot possibly reciprocate. Me not eating a lamb isn't
going to change the odds of me being eaten by a lamb. Kow towing to a
veal calf makes no more sense than making a sacrifice to the volcano god
or beating your car with a stick. Animals cannot reciprocate with us. If
we don't eat them they don't get eaten. That's it. The world is not
improved and we don't reduce the number of people getting eaten by
tigers or sharks or the the chances of getting hurricanes or
earthquakes. Making deals with dumb animals is like throwing money into
a wishing well: it might feel like some kind of a contract to you
because it costs you something, but it does not pay you back with
anything. If you have a puritan mindset it might make you feel good,
like self-flagellation might make you feel good. But I don't have a
puritan mindset and I don't want one thanks very much.

Your "fundamental moral principle" is screwing up your life because you
are trying to apply it where it does not work.

<snipped quoted material unread>

>>
>>The perpetual cry of the woman, the natural belittler of meat in the
>>diet, the woman who traditionally has supplied the bulk of the calories
>>through drudgery.

>
>
> It's called cooperation and sharing.


>
>
>>No herbivorous species would ever cooperate for
>>precicely this reason: providing food from vegetable matter is drudgery
>>and shirking is bitterly resented.

>
>
> That makes no sense. What's "shirking", if not not cooperating?


Shirking is behaving naturally, in your own interest. Cows do not chew
each others' cud. A system of cooperation is always likely to collapse
because of shirking, it can never develop in a herbivorous species
without a highly peculiar reproductive method (e.g. naked mole rats and
termites) and that is why it hasn't. Herbivores never share any food or
cooperate over food after they have weaned. There's a massive animal
kingdom out there, show me the counter example.


>
>
>>Hunting contributes very high quality food to the diet.

>
>
> 'High quality' to carnivorous species- which we are not.
>
> Life-saving calories in times of scarcity.



The world's vegans could throw away all their special nutritional
supplements and all their diet books, their scales and measures and
forget about all their dietary concerns (and the idea of eating dirt or
shit) completely if they just ate one portion of meat or fish per week.
That is an extremely healthy human diet.



>
>
>>Exactly how
>>valuable the contribution of meat is will always be a matter of
>>contention, the hunters were always traditionally the men who would play
>>up the importance of meat

>
>
> Nice of you to admit it.
>
>
>>and women would play it down. Meat was also
>>the currency of sexual betrayal. In every hunter gatherer tribe studied
>>the best hunters had access to the most women.

>
>
> Because it would indicate that they were fitter, no doubt; and
> in times of need, an ability to actually catch something helps.
>
>


********. The better hunters get more women because they have higher
status with the men and sometimes because they can provide valuable meat.

Women are attracted to fit men? Yeah right. Of course given a free
choice between two otherwise identical millionaires a woman will tend to
go for the one with the cuter bum 9 times out of 10...

"Winner is renowned for his many relationships, enjoying the company of
some of the world's most beautiful women, including Joan Collins and
Sophia Loren; he also had a six-and-half-year relationship with the
actress Jenny Seagrove, who ended the relationship after catching him
with another woman. He is, as of June 2005, dating Paula Lombard who is
30 years his junior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Winner


"What was it that first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?"
~ Mrs Merton

>>Belittling meat is simply
>> part of the strategy to try to get women's contributions valued
>>more highly.

>
>
> Strategy? Oh dear. Maybe you should.


In any trade it helps to make out that what you are bringing to the deal
is worth more than that which you are taking away, despite the rather
obvious point that your willingness to make the trade proves that the
exact opposite is true. Of course men will make out that meat is highly
valuable and women will make out that it is totally trivial and so
hardly any vegetable food or sex needs to be offered in exchange, but
the exchange is made, which reveals the true value that both parties
actually put on their commodities.

>
>
>>>>Cooperation begins to make a lot more
>>>>sense. If you bring down an animal too big for you to eat alone you
>>>>share it, and convert the calories you couldn't eat into social debts
>>>>and obligations.
>>>
>>>
>>>One large animal every thirty hunter days between everyone won't go far.

>>
>>It is quite sufficient for most tribes to ensure they don't routinely
>>resort to cannibalism.

>
>
> If there's a real need for it smaller animals would also be hunted.


Of course, but eating smaller animals is a sign of poverty, desperation
or lack of true prowess at food provision that is why British roast beef
eaters disdained the frog and snail-eating French. The rich eat turbot
and beef steak, the poor eat winkles and rabbit. The really poor eat
rats and beetles.

Not to mention of course it is also a sign that vegan diets don't work
unless there is a large variety of vegetable food available, which is
not the case in many environments that man can live in quite comfortably
by making use of animal food.

>
>
>>>>That kind of society makes sense but it requires a
>>>>further boost in brains and social skills. Meat helped us to become
>>>>sharers and carers. Without meat we would never have become human.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're wrong. Compassion is supposedly a human trait. Where's yours?
>>>

>>
>>Ah. Now why did I find this AFTER I was looking for evidence that vegans
>>made out they were morally superior?

>
>
> NORMAL human beings.
>


<snip>

Argue your own case or don't bother.

>
>
>>Compassion is a human trait but it isn't what makes us human.

>
>
> A lack of compassion makes one less-than-hman. Inhuman.
>
> in·hu·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hymn)
> 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.
>
> in·human·ly adv.
> in·human·ness n.
> ..
> 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?q=inhuman
>
>
>>If we
>>discovered a tribe of people who were clearly intelligent, tool-using
>>and inter-fertile with us but had no compassion we would not conclude
>>that they did not belong to our species or did not qualify to be called
>>human, although we would be justified in studying them to understand
>>this anomalous condition.

>
>
> It's called Psychopathy.
>
>
>>Likewise a species of compassionate wombats or
>>even chimpanzees would not be regarded as people.

>
>
> As human people.
>
> '9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans:
> Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people


Votes for rabbits? I don't think so.

>
>
>>It was sharing and cooperation that was vitally important in making the
>>transition from a baboon-like existence to the rich complex social life
>>we enjoy today.

>
>
> The collection, preparation and sharing of plant foods is cooperative.


On which planet is this? Forget that, it would not work on any planet.

Which herbivorous species share food? The rule of the herbivore is eat
what you collect. Watch squirrels, they bury nuts. They don't gather all
the nuts together in a big pile and share them out collectively to get
them through the long winter, despite the fact that this might be a more
efficient way to operate. If any herbivore tried to do that the system
would collapse before it began to evolve as the smarter and/or stronger
squirrels would not waste their energy collecting food but would make
sure they got all they needed from the collective store. Collective
farming does not work for man or any other species that breeds in a
similar way.

>
>
>>That would not have happened without a change in diet
>>that had meat eating as a vital component of it for the simple reason
>>that no vegetable based food requires elaborate cooperation to exploit.

>
>
> Wrong. You'd have foraging parties, just as you'd go looking for
> animals. In fact, knowing where to find plant-foods is essential;
> when on a hunt, you'd do a fairly random search over the terrain.
>


Foraging parties collect food alongside each other, into separate
baskets. They don't collect food collectively, unless they physically
can't do it any other way.

>
>>Digging up a yam or picking a mango does not take a lot of cooperation,
>>language or plans drawn up in the sand with a stick but gathering honey
>>or hunting a buffalo does.

>
>
> The gathering, preparation and provisioning of plant-foods
> involves a lot of cooperation. Your argument is flawed.


Yeah, cows are forever holding strategy meetings, aren't they?

Gorillas move from one area to another, and help themselves to food.
That's it. That is the strategy. The silverback moves off thataway and
the rest follow or he cuffs them one.

You are simply making a statement. You haven't even quoted chapter and
verse.

Plant food does not require cooperation and exploiting it is not
conducive to developing cooperation.

>
>
>>>>Of course that does not mean we ate a lot of meat or ate more meat than
>>>>vegetable-derived calories or even protein, only that meat eating was a
>>>>vitally important part of our behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>>>I helped us survive in times of need. Be grateful.
>>>

>>
>>*You* did? That seems like a very strange claim to me.

>
>
> Typo, of course. Animals have. Be thankful.
>
>


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.

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.

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.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

wrote:
> More garbage from meat industry shills.


Nope. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about
concerning bird flu and BSE.

  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Autymn D. C.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

ant and dec wrote:
> You talk absolute ********. I suggest you seek mental help. Diputs woc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
ant and dec
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like to be eaten?

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

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********#Talking_********
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
Have you ever eaten....... Denise in NH General Cooking 9 22-04-2009 05:59 PM
Anyone eaten Fox ? Steve Y General Cooking 13 26-01-2007 11:56 PM
The most food ever eaten... Andy General Cooking 40 13-12-2006 05:01 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 1 19-06-2006 08:32 PM
How many of these has Kibo eaten? Adam Funk General Cooking 0 19-06-2006 07:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 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"