On 11 Jun, 15:36, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Dragonblaze wrote:
> > > I'm not evading anything, ...
Evading, and now lying.
I am pointing out that as a human falsely claiming you
are a “omnivore” (without ANY substantiation!), you do not
follow the undeniable pattern for ALL NATURAL “omnivores” –
that of killing, dismembering, and eating RAW your animal prey.
Why don’t you follow your “omnivorous” instincts and
follow the pattern consistent in all the animal kingdom?
You are avoiding this critical issue to protect your
ego and ‘defend’ your cultural conditioning; clearly, this
means we are NOT natural “omnivores”, humans are cultural
omnivores, conditioned to do so by a sick, deranged, culture
that has isolated itself from Nature through the
misapplication of technology -- starting with fire and
tools, in this case.
Of course, if you had any sincere interest in the
issue, you could simply ask your local two-year-old to eat a
mouse or kitten raw, and s/he will explain to you that such
behavior is not right. Now, why, we ask, does a
two-year-old have deeper insight than you?
I’ll answer that one for you, too. The child is
closer in touch with its instincts because its ego has not
been programmed into all those false beliefs that plague,
control, and dominate you, thus preventing you from honest
evaluation of the facts.
Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the
questions.
> Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
if you can.
Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based
rational arguments. Does someone really need to tell you that?
> I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your
animal prey raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do
you just chew on an ox’s ass, and tear off and eat a chunk –
like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you hire some one to do
the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into tiny
slices.
WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL
“omnivores” do. You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish
one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.
> You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
Your false paradigm can not be sup****ted with personal
insults.
In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
The length of time engaging in this tragedy is
irrelevant; the im****tant issue is did we “adapt” to
omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that
we “adapted” to flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology
clearly proves that to thinking individuals.
Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by
which ANY species can “adapt” to a diet differing from its
natural one, and you certainly can not present any.
> Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
There is NO evidence sup****ting your claims.
> [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
ALL my claim are strongly sup****ted by well over 700
citations to the contem****ary scientific literature, while
you have NO evidence sup****ting your cultural propaganda. NONE!
You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are
caused by your bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created
by consuming way too much protein.
http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm
> Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
bogus "research" …
Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults
are all you have, in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF
they could prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can
offer us mindless unsup****ted propaganda, lies, insults, etc.
> [clueless ranting snipped]
Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?
> You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
judging from the nonsense you spout.
More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter
into polite, academic discussion. Why? Because she does
not have the ability.
> … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
peddle.
IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it
with a few judicious citations, yet you can not refute
anything I say. Insults, in case no one ever told you, are
not refutations.
> Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
when compared to herbivores?
Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT
“herbivores”!
http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
> EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with
the subject matter should be able to present an intelligent
summary, but you can not.
> > You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
> > profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
> > culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
> > code and its biochemistry.
> > Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly
NOT NATURAL omnivores.
> > Could you really not grasp this concept on your own?
As usual, no response to a critical point; do you
really not comprehend the difference between “do” and “be”?
> I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not
available....
My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well
over 700 citations to the current scientific literature that
fully sup****t my claims.
This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really
pathetic.
> … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you
missed over 700 citations on my site, or is it just easier
to LIE about that?
> I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.
> Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on
plant-based diets.
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
There are several hundred studies cited here for you
to ignore like a fool.
>> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
>> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave
any evidence of their diets just like chimps, today, do not
leave any evidence of their diets.
Isn’t this obvious?
> You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt
to protect your ego from dealing honestly with the facts.
>>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that
reason.
We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.
> Your faith ****elds you from reality, just like any other
faith-head.
The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults
is that is all you know.
I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute
anything I say with fact and logic, but you can not handle
that. You are a fraud, a lying propagandist with no sign of
intellectual ability.
> And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
about to be challenged later.
It’s always “later”.
>> > > to explain how and why your alleged vegans switched
>> > > to a diet including animal ingredients.
> > Well known! I am surprise that you don’t know even
this trivial fact.
> > The foolish migration out of the Tropics into cold
areas
> > that produced NO plant foods (fruits) during winter, and
> > the survival gambit to eat animals, the only thing living
> > locally. Try to review your "archaeological data" in an
> > honest way.
> Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
“Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human
commodity; don’t you know even this?
The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the facts.
http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
> You're the one making the claim, so you prove it.
YOU claim human ARE omnivores, yet you can not offer
any science that suggests so. Your claims are unsup****ted
and fraudulent.
> I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
There are well over 700 citations n my site; having
serious vision problems in addition to intellectual and
moral ones?
> … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot
sup****t your idiotic claims.
>> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
>> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
>> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
some sort of juvenile joke?
Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the
intellectually incompetent.
> - and something else I will present later.
Oh yeah – LATER.
> Chimps supplement their diet with animals.
Research indicates that animals are not consumed by
all adults, as they would for nutritional purposes. The
facts indicate that flesh is distributed to some females in
exchange for ***ual favors, quite similar to human “dating”.
http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
> Scavenging freshly-killed carc***** would not be carrion
eating, and well within human tolerance.
Not only does this not make any sense, but the human
has a strong instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe
it – try eating some road kill that has been ripening in the
sun****ne for a couple of days. Let’s see if YOU can eat
putrefying corpses.
> But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
of all
recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie
creationist would do.
More lies and insults; what a dunce!
> … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
to find any.
Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have
not seen, or you would not be lying about the lack of citations.
>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge).
Start with
>> > > this article:
> > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> > NOT related to natural human diet.
> Okay....
What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right,
while you are wrong??
> The results suggest that early hominids regularly
exploited relatively open environments …
After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem
into areas that did not produce the tropical fruits that
made up the great majority of their diet, they HAD to change
their diet to a deficient compromise for survival. That did
NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change to
efficiently process the compromised diet. There are NO know
mechanisms whereby any species can change their fundamental
biochemistry to properly handle a diet that is different
than the ‘natural one’.
> M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
Anthro-apologist are frauds!
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a
>. What else can I debunk for you today?
Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your
unsup****ted claim that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why
modern “degenerative diseases” are all linked to flesh-eating?
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
Do a Pubmed search for <meat
the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds of references will
appear that show that disease is strongly correlated with
flesh-eating.
> Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
animal ingredients,
No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! The study
correlated the amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in
western studies more flesh correlated with more disease.
Here’s a couple of examples.
http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
http://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
> … done a critique of Campbell's
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
“problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
“became socially closed-off, and began having occasional
irrational bursts of anger.”
“I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week
that were becoming disabling …”
This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.
> … I'm not interested in China Study.
Of course, it challenges your ego. Disinterest is
simply avoidance.
>Says a committed faith-head. Such irony....
Insults show who you really are. Such absurdity.
Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
|
