Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The AntiChris · 03-29-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:

Of course calling it 'rotting,' while technically correct, is using pejorative lanugage in order to get an emotional response from your audience... (of course we never see that from the anti-meat community now, do we?

)

How you have the gall to say this in view of your previous posts is beyond me.

The gross characterisation of your opponent's position has been a hallmark of your debating style. You are clearly lacking any sense of irony.

Chris

Corwin · 03-29-2002, 01:15 PM

Well having been the victim of it repeatedly... I'll say what I damned well feel like. Fair enough?

Nohweh · 03-29-2002, 01:24 PM

Most of the sites seem to agree that we evolved on a diet of 95% fruit and other plant material and 5% eggs, meat and insects. This makes your 'biological imperative'look rather pathetic don't you think? Do you eat less than 5% meat? If you eat considerably more than that, then you only do so because you want to. Do you have a problem with saying that you eat it because you enjoy it, or does 'biological imperative' just sound so much more impressive?

You can't have it both ways. Either you agree with the conclusions drawn on the sites you linked to, which means that, as Spin pointed out, eating meat in 2002 is not biologically imperative, or you are exaggerating the importance of meat in the human diet to make your point.

Does anyone have a good grasshopper recipe that they would like to share?

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Nohweh ]

Bokonon · 03-29-2002, 01:30 PM

Upon lengthy searching, I have come to the conclusion that I can't find ANY authoritative source on the issue at hand. One link said 12 hours for "most meats", another said 72-96 hours for just plain ole "meats", but neither website is anything I'd dare consider worthy of being called a source. At this time, I hereby withdraw my claim with the right to claim it again if I actually find an authoritative source either way. I am rather distraught that I let such a thing slip by me. My argument to date has been rather flawless I think, but I have spoken one mistruth inadvertently.

Now if you'll please, for I believe the 4th time saying this, respond to the rest of my comments. You have found one errant (or at least potentially errant) sentence within a few dozen sentences. I have responded to each and every thing laid out by you, but you clearly are not in a position to do the same. By ignoring my posts as a whole, you are merely proving how weak your arguments are. And you still haven't said how your articles in anyway disprove what I've said (with the exception of the digestion which they don't disprove either, but we're simply lacking a source of repute at the moment).

And to Join Up North:

I'm afraid I can't find the Snopes reference you are referring to. I searched for "pepsin", "meat digestion", "peptidase", and "protein", but no search term revealed anything of relevance. Please link me to the specific article.

Corwin · 03-29-2002, 01:31 PM

If you're looking at Vegan sites, yes... they'll say that. Anthropologists rarely site percentages, when they do the range tends to be more along the lines of 20-40%, depending on the study. (Evidence is somewhat unclear, and any of them are really nothing more than guesses. It's not like we have stomach contents to analyze, but tooth enamel studies put the percentage of meat in the diet of the later australopithicines at a fairly high level. Possibly as high as 40%, although probably a bit lower than this.)

Whether 5 or 40 percent.... either one proves that early man was NOT a frugivore or an herbivore. We've been omnivorous for as long as we've been even remotely 'human.' (Additionally since a. afarensis our protein needs have increased, so we have a greater need for meat than afarensis did.)

Bokonon · 03-29-2002, 01:35 PM

Who claimed we were Herbivores? I said our ancestors were mostly a vegan species with the occasional corpse and egg until they left the jungle. Quit putting words in my mouth and respond to what I actually say instead of what you assume I say. I even said veganism was impractical as early as 100 years ago.

Though it should be pointed out that even as they left the jungle, meat didn't play the primary role in their diet, as your own sources reveal.

Corwin · 03-29-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nohweh:
Most of the sites seem to agree that we evolved on a diet of 95% fruit and other plant material and 5% eggs, meat and insects. This makes your 'biological imperative'look rather pathetic don't you think? Do you eat less than 5% meat? If you eat considerably more than that, then you only do so because you want to. Do you have a problem with saying that you eat it because you enjoy it, or does 'biological imperative' just sound so much more impressive?

You can't have it both ways. Either you agree with the conclusions drawn on the sites you linked to, which means that, as Spin pointed out, eating meat in 2002 is not biologically imperative, or you are exaggerating the importance of meat in the human diet to make your point.

Does anyone have a good grasshopper recipe that they would like to share?

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Nohweh ]

I eat meat for a number of reasons. I happen to like it. I happen to like it very much. In fact I happen to like it to the point where Bambi just isn't terribly safe from me. (Although legal issues restrict me to Bambi's daddy. No problem... he has a bigger rack and more meat on him anyway...) I also happen to be healthier when I eat meat. So bring me a steak. Rare. No fuck that. BRING ME A LIVE COW!!!!! I'LL CARVE OFF WHAT I WANT.... AND RIDE THE REST HOME!!!!!!!

There. Now that I've gotten that off my chest... and cleared the air on that topic... fuck the rest. What the hell am I doing bringing up these points? YOU are the ones that are supposed to be defending vegetarianism.

I don't have to defend jack shit. YOU argue that vegetarianism is somehow more moral? Back it up. I'm not under any obligation to justify eating meat, for the reasons I've already given.

Go back and read the first post in the thread.

Bokonon · 03-29-2002, 01:47 PM

What a well thought out and educated response.

And of course, its the one response I have no argument against. While I find it rather pathetic that you can't look beyond carnal pleasures, at least you've made it clear that all your other arguments were rather non-existant.

I'm afraid you're the one in this thread getting defensive.

The biological/health aspects certainly were not initiated by me, nor do I think they were by you. I am rather positive however that it was initiated by someone on "your side". Don't blame me for responding to those types of questions. I'd be happy to stick to the ethical points, 2 of which you STILL have ignored.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

Corwin · 03-29-2002, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bokonon:
What a well thought out and educated response.

And of course, its the one response I have no argument against. While I find it rather pathetic that you can't look beyond carnal pleasures, at least you've made it clear that all your other arguments were rather non-existant.

I'm afraid you're the one in this thread getting defensive.

The biological/health aspects certainly were not initiated by me, nor do I think they were by you. I am rather positive however that it was initiated by someone on "your side". Don't blame me for responding to those types of questions. I'd be happy to stick to the ethical points, 2 of which you STILL have ignored.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

And which two would those be?

(If you read the post again you'll notice that the fact that I like meat isn't the only reason I eat it, but it's one I don't shy away from, as was implied.)

Bokonon · 03-29-2002, 02:02 PM

- Human starvation and its connection to factory farming
- Environmental issues and their connection to factory farming

Before you ask, I'll beat you to the punch. This I know I can find good sources on. Just give me till tomorrow. In the meantime, perhaps responding to my posts of substance would be a welcome change of pace?

03-29-2002, 01:24 PM	#243
Nohweh Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 802	Most of the sites seem to agree that we evolved on a diet of 95% fruit and other plant material and 5% eggs, meat and insects. This makes your 'biological imperative'look rather pathetic don't you think? Do you eat less than 5% meat? If you eat considerably more than that, then you only do so because you want to. Do you have a problem with saying that you eat it because you enjoy it, or does 'biological imperative' just sound so much more impressive? You can't have it both ways. Either you agree with the conclusions drawn on the sites you linked to, which means that, as Spin pointed out, eating meat in 2002 is not biologically imperative, or you are exaggerating the importance of meat in the human diet to make your point. Does anyone have a good grasshopper recipe that they would like to share? [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Nohweh ]</p>

03-29-2002, 01:47 PM	#248
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	What a well thought out and educated response. And of course, its the one response I have no argument against. While I find it rather pathetic that you can't look beyond carnal pleasures, at least you've made it clear that all your other arguments were rather non-existant. I'm afraid you're the one in this thread getting defensive. The biological/health aspects certainly were not initiated by me, nor do I think they were by you. I am rather positive however that it was initiated by someone on "your side". Don't blame me for responding to those types of questions. I'd be happy to stick to the ethical points, 2 of which you STILL have ignored. [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2002, 01:15 PM	#242
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Well having been the victim of it repeatedly... I'll say what I damned well feel like. Fair enough?

03-29-2002, 01:30 PM	#244
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	Upon lengthy searching, I have come to the conclusion that I can't find ANY authoritative source on the issue at hand. One link said 12 hours for "most meats", another said 72-96 hours for just plain ole "meats", but neither website is anything I'd dare consider worthy of being called a source. At this time, I hereby withdraw my claim with the right to claim it again if I actually find an authoritative source either way. I am rather distraught that I let such a thing slip by me. My argument to date has been rather flawless I think, but I have spoken one mistruth inadvertently. Now if you'll please, for I believe the 4th time saying this, respond to the rest of my comments. You have found one errant (or at least potentially errant) sentence within a few dozen sentences. I have responded to each and every thing laid out by you, but you clearly are not in a position to do the same. By ignoring my posts as a whole, you are merely proving how weak your arguments are. And you still haven't said how your articles in anyway disprove what I've said (with the exception of the digestion which they don't disprove either, but we're simply lacking a source of repute at the moment). And to Join Up North: I'm afraid I can't find the Snopes reference you are referring to. I searched for "pepsin", "meat digestion", "peptidase", and "protein", but no search term revealed anything of relevance. Please link me to the specific article.

03-29-2002, 01:31 PM	#245
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	If you're looking at Vegan sites, yes... they'll say that. Anthropologists rarely site percentages, when they do the range tends to be more along the lines of 20-40%, depending on the study. (Evidence is somewhat unclear, and any of them are really nothing more than guesses. It's not like we have stomach contents to analyze, but tooth enamel studies put the percentage of meat in the diet of the later australopithicines at a fairly high level. Possibly as high as 40%, although probably a bit lower than this.) Whether 5 or 40 percent.... either one proves that early man was NOT a frugivore or an herbivore. We've been omnivorous for as long as we've been even remotely 'human.' (Additionally since a. afarensis our protein needs have increased, so we have a greater need for meat than afarensis did.)

03-29-2002, 01:35 PM	#246
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	Who claimed we were Herbivores? I said our ancestors were mostly a vegan species with the occasional corpse and egg until they left the jungle. Quit putting words in my mouth and respond to what I actually say instead of what you assume I say. I even said veganism was impractical as early as 100 years ago. Though it should be pointed out that even as they left the jungle, meat didn't play the primary role in their diet, as your own sources reveal.

03-29-2002, 02:02 PM	#250
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	- Human starvation and its connection to factory farming - Environmental issues and their connection to factory farming Before you ask, I'll beat you to the punch. This I know I can find good sources on. Just give me till tomorrow. In the meantime, perhaps responding to my posts of substance would be a welcome change of pace?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.