On 17 Jun, 15:52, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Who's lying here? How about a little netkook who snipped all my
references to PROPER scientific sources? Don't worry, hun, my posts
are archived, and can be restored.
I'm also aware that you had to start a new thread to evade my evidence
and questions - and you won't get away just THAT easily. Let's reveal
you just how dishonest you are.
[boring and erroneous rant snipped]
> Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the
> questions.
Take your own advice - and don't delete the ones you have problems
with. Such as, how come my partner does not get colds and I do, while
we both have the SAME diet? You snipped that without even indicating a
snip. Now answer it.
> > 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?
Just using your own techniques....
> > 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=92s ass, and tear off and eat a chunk =96
> like the REAL =93Omnivores=94 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=92t bite off pieces like REAL
> =93omnivores=94 do. You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish
> one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.
How many times do I have to explain to you that since we developed
tools and fire we do not need to? Most people - raw food freaks
excluded - do prefer their food cooked, vegans included.
> > 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
Not in your case, obviously.
> > 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 =93adapt=94 to
> omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
> There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that
> we =93adapted=94 to flesh=96eating, in fact the epidemiology
> clearly proves that to thinking individuals.
> Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by
> which ANY species can =93adapt=94 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.
Don't you forget about them australopithecines....
> > [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!
What did I really say? Let's restore it...
"And that was mentioned in response to another of your
"scientifically backed facts" (not that I've seen you post one yet)
where you claimed meat has no flavour of its own."
Care to scientifically back that claim?
And "Let's see them then - some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you
manage
to find any. All I've seen so far are either from encyclopedias - and
had you ever attended university, you would have been told in your
freshman year that they are not a scientific source - or from
uncredited sources."
So, could I see some peer-reviewed sources you use to back your
claims?
> 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
LMAO! Look who is talking! If you've read my profile, you'll find that
I don't suffer fools gladly. Especially not belligerent evangelistical
vegans. As for my intellectual functions, well, you have your opinion
- even though it is minority of one.
> > Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
> bogus "research" =85
> Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults
> are all you have, in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, =85
> 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.
Restoring again... "I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus
"study". Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets, and
thrive on it. Thing is, dearie, we spread all over the globe happily
munching animal diet on the way. I guess you are really clueless as
regards natural selection and what the consquences would be if your
unbacked claims really were true."
> > [clueless ranting snipped]
> Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?
I won't spend my time dealing with irrational ranting.
> > 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.
She actually does - and I do have an academic background - but
remember, hun, you started the insults, and my nym actually is fair
clue of what to expect when you annoy me. "A truly wise man never
starts a flame war with a dragon."
> > =85 pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
> peddle.
> IF it were =93crackpot=94 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.
Restoring what you failed to address:
"That is clearly an unwarranted assumption. When he says "very
likely"
that means he has NOT actually researched the issue, but is guessing
instead.
I have also noticed how China Study has failed to make any impact on
the scientific community. I have yet to see it cited in any serious
scientific journal. In fact, China Study has basically been
completely
abandoned by the scientific community because it contained data
gathering error, inadequate statistical review, and outright
falsehood
and it isn't peer reviewed That you imagine it to be scientific, is
no
problem of mine, of course."
I HAVE done so, only to have some dishonest bint to snip all my
refutations. Here's one example of your erroneous claims, my
refutation, and your deletion without indication:
" Filthy living conditions, sewage running through the city
> streets, unrefrigerated meat, putrefying dairy, ... are you
> simply IGNORING the im****tant environmental factors involved
> to sup****t a false belief?
Who's avoiding now, eh? You claimed flu-like symptoms are really
"natural detox" - don't remember you saying anything about
environment.
Besides, USA of the 1919 does NOT, repeat NOT qualify - and neither
does England. You're describing conditions that were gone from the
major urban areas of the industrial world by 1919, so try again.
And why just then and not, say 1859, when at least some of those
conditions were still present, and people had flu epidemics, just not
from such a virulent strain?
YOU are ignoring what the environment of 1919-20 really was in let's
say New York, which had 33,000 dead from it. Go do some research
about
just how much sewage they had on the streets..."
> > Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
> when compared to herbivores?
> Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT
> =93herbivores=94!http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
Chimps eat meat too - as macagues eat fish.
> > 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.
Give it a go then - see if you can.
[snip]
>
> > 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.
Only because some dishonest bint snipped them.
"Dental Evidence for the Diet of Australopithecus
R F Kay =AD
"Gracile Australopithecus,. being carnivorous in part, had less need
for large grinding teeth."
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 315-341 (Volume publication date October 1985) " IS a peer-
reviewed citation - something you have yet to produce.
> > =85 you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
> present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
> You don=92t 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?
The ones I saw were either uncredited of from encyclopedias. NEITHER
is acceptable as a scientific citation.
> > I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
> More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.
IT's plain the China Study is flawed, see what you snipped.
> > 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.
Cite ONE from a peer-reviewed source.
> >> 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=92t this obvious?
Nope - there was news about chimp archaeology just a few days ago.
> > You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, =85
> You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt
> to protect your ego from dealing honestly with the facts.
Anyone who uses as dubious sources as you does not deal honestly with
facts.
> >>> =85 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 =91other=92 primates.
Chimps - who eat meat - are 98% genetically matched to us.
> > 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.
Says a faith-head with no skills in evaluating sources - and a
tendency to avoid ANY facts that contradict their beliefs.
> > And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
> about to be challenged later.
> It=92s always =93later=94.
IF you hadn't snipped the bit about the australopithecines, that was
the 'later.' But when research does not back Laurie's opinions, Laurie
snips.
[snip]
> > Chimps still live in the tropics =85 and both eat
> either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
> =93Meat=94 is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human
> commodity; don=92t you know even this?
Meat is animal flesh, that is why lions etc are called carnivores
(literally meat-eaters). Don't you know even THAT?
> The lie that =93chimps eat flesh=94 is easily refuted by the
fact=
s.http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gifhttp://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm=
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htmhttp://www.ecologos.org/fft.htmhttp:=
//ecologos.org/cbs.htmhttp://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
Saw it. Am not impressed. It does not change the fact that chimps kill
monkeys and eat their meat.
[snip]
=2E
>
> > 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?
Having serious problem with uncredited or non-scientific sources.
> > =85 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 =96 NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the
> intellectually incompetent.
Pot. Kettle. Black
[snip]
> =A0> Scavenging freshly-killed carc***** would not be carrion
> eating, and well within human tolerance.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Not only does this not make any sense, but the human
> has a strong instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don=92t believe
> it =96 try eating some road kill that has been ripening in the
> sun****ne for a couple of days. =A0Let=92s see if YOU can eat
> putrefying corpses.
What part of 'freshly-killed' did you fail to understand?
> =A0> 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.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 More lies and insults; what a dunce!
>
> =A0> =85 some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
> to find any.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have
> not seen, or you would not be lying about the lack of citations.
I said PEER-REVIEWED, not some e-mail or encyclopedia article.
> =A0>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge).
Start with
> =A0>> > > this article:
> =A0> > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> =A0> > NOT related to natural human diet.
> =A0> Okay....
> =A0 =A0 =A0 What=92s this; recognition of the fact that I am right,
> while you are wrong??
>
> =A0> The results suggest that early hominids regularly
> exploited relatively open environments =85
> =A0 =A0 =A0 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. =A0That did
> NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change =A0to
> efficiently process the compromised diet. =A0There are NO know
> mechanisms whereby any species can change their fundamental
> biochemistry to properly handle a diet that is different
> than the =91natural one=92.
>
> =A0> M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, =85
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Anthro-apologist are frauds!http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a
Of couuurse they are - when their research does not sup****t our lil'
Laurie's ideas./sarcasm off/
> =A0>. What else can I debunk for you today?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your
> unsup****ted claim that human =93evolved=94 to eat flesh, why
> modern =93degenerative diseases=94 are all linked to
flesh-eating?http://=
ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> =A0 =A0 =A0 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.
Typical statistical fallacy, as I have already explained - and you
dishonestly snipped.
"Most of the wild animals die too young to manifest any such
[degenerative] diseases.
You can, however, see them in family pets, which have much longer
lifespans than wild animals. The same fallacy has been employed by
food faddists before you, but it is simply not true. They tended to
cite India, which is largely vegetarian, as relatively free from such
diseases - but when you see what the life expectancy and the average
age of death was, the real reason becomes apparent.
We also do quite a few "unnatural" other things, like build houses,
wear clothes or use computers. Do you make a nest in the trees each
night, as that would be "natural" for your vegan species?"
> =A0> Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
> animal ingredients,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! =A0The study
> correlated the amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in
> western studies more flesh correlated with more disease.
> =A0 =A0 Here=92s a couple of
examples.http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-deat=
h.htmhttp://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
>
> =A0> =85 done a critique of
Campbell'shttp://www.cholesterol-and-health.c=
om/China-Study.html
> =93problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen =85=94
> =93became socially closed-off, and began having occasional
> irrational bursts of anger.=94
> =93I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week
> that were becoming disabling =85=94
> =A0 =A0 =A0 This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.
Only because he does not agree with you.... As usual.
> =A0> =85 I'm not interested in China Study.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Of course, it challenges your ego. =A0Disinterest is
> simply avoidance.
Dishonest snipping again. The real one was: "I also am not interested
in Flat-Earth arguments, geocentricity, ID
and other such nonsense for exactly the same reasons I'm not
interested in China Study."
Dragonblaze
|
