Bokonon

Is Richard Leakey a revisionist?

And I don't think I need to point out that you've evaded almost every rebuttal I've made. I must only assume that you're preparing to respond.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Nohweh

Don't hold your breath while you're waiting for him to respond Bokonon. Judging by the abrasiveness of his posts and the inaccuracy of his assertions, Corwin is only playing 'Bait the Veggie' and appears to have little interest in actually debating the subject. Perhaps I'm wrong, we shall see..

Detached9

[Corwin]: Flat out? The whole 'holier/more moral than thou' attitude of vegans and of many vegetarians just plain pisses me off.

Generalizing a bit? For some reason my vegan and vegetarian friends don't mind eating dinner with people who eat meat, they simply don't eat the meat. None of my friends complain about them eating the animals. For some reason vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters can exist in harmony.

I think that "some reason" would be that there are many tolerant vegans and vegetarians.

Corwin

Getting a little defensive are we? My my my. I must have hit a nerve.

Ask... and ye shall recieve.

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001221073953.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001221073953.htm</a>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_255000/255725.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_255000/255725.stm</a>

<a href="http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/mattmurray.html" target="_blank">http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/mattmurray.html</a>

<a href="http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/Esrey/locomotion.htm" target="_blank">http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/Esrey/locomotion.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1d.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1d.shtml</a>

<a href="http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/AustralopithecusGarhi.html" target="_blank">http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/AustralopithecusGarhi.html</a>

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/communicate/hominid2.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/communicate/hominid2.shtml</a>

Baiting the fund^H^H^H^H veggies isn't my primary motivation here... it's just a nice added bonus.

The AntiChris

Bokonon

I don't think I've been defensive in the slightest. If asking you to respond to points I make instead of running away from them is being defensive, then I apologize.

Color me confused, but I fail to see how any of those articles disprove one word I said.

Allow me to quote myself...

"When it comes to biology, you are correct that our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat and eggs (though not dairy!). In terms of meat consumption, I’d contend that is for survival purposes, or at most, for rare occasions. Meat takes days to digest, literally rotting as it moves through the intestines. Most plant foods are out of there within 24 hours. Have you read Richard Leakey (an avid hunter I might point out)? He and many other respected anthropologists agree that our ancestors were essentially vegans with the occasional egg or rotting corpse. Then we left the jungle and needed to find other sources of food. It seems to me that supports the survival angle."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how in the world do those articles disprove me? They seem to support every word I've said in fact.

And I'm still waiting on responses from the many other points I presented.

EDIT: I don't think I need to point out the irony of criticizing PETA and yet using beyondveg to prove a point.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Corwin

And your source for the 'meat takes days to digest' would be?

Of course it 'rots.' What exactly do you think decay is? Oh... that's right... digestion. 'Decay' of organic material is the digestive process of microorganisms deposited on and in the material. Molds, fungi, insects and bacteria all 'digest' the material. Does it really surprise you that the process is essentially the same in the human digestive system? (Where not only our own enzymes break down food for our own cells to absorb, but symbiotic bacteria do the same.)

EDIT: I've never heard of anyone from Beyondveg ever physically attacking anyone who disagreed with them or even threatening to. Draw what conclusions you will. What is it that makes them a poor source? I read over it and don't see anything about 'VEGANS ARE EEEEEEEVILLLLLLL!!!!!' What I see is 'if you want to be a Vegan or Vegetarian here's what you need to know.' Read over the site. They're actually quite rational and moderate.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

x-member

Peptidase is one of the first enzymes to break down protein (including meat). Meat does not rott in the digestive tract. <a href="http://www.snopes.com" target="_blank">www.snopes.com</a> is a good site for debunking silly urban legends such as the above.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>

Corwin

It doesn't actually 'rot' per se.

It's more or less the same reaction tho, in the same way that rust is essentially the same concept/reaction as fire. (You're oxidizing a different element at a lower temperature... but chemically it's very similar.)

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? )

Pomp

spin,

(Was your response re: the inclusion of a sentence about consent in the above moral system lost in your incident?)

Sorry, I've just lost the full response in the *ucking edit box going back…

I usually copy and paste into my word processor if I plan to post more than a sentence or two. I’ve lost too many detailed replies by not doing so.

You are confusing the two parts of the statement. You are attempting to do everything in the first part, which is the primary directive part saying that the aim is to protect and benefit sentient life.

So, the first sentence should really read, “Never harm a sentient being unless so directed by another moral axiom” or something similar?

Your desire to get 1000 whatevers killed is a clear violation of the first part (we don't consider the motivation yet),

First of all, I don’t have any “desire” to kill 1,000 beings. I’m setting up a hypothetical situation in which you can explain how your morality works when the interests of different sentient beings conflict. This is a sandbox in which I want to get a handle on your theory. After you’ve explained your entire moral theory, and I understand it, I intend to extrapolate your deliberations here it to real-world applications.

…so we pass to the second part and attempt to resolve the conflict and it is here where your motivation comes into the story, as it is weighed with other considerations.

What other considerations? I’m still hung up on this part. We have the considerationsof 10,000 beings who will die if we perform ~X and the consideration of 1,000 beings who will die if we perform X. It seems clear that the consideration of the 10,000 would overwhelm the consideration of the 1,000 unless you have some other factors to present. Is this where consent is considered?

On consent, a life can consciously waive their protection and benefit. The result of that waiving may not be either moral or immoral.

So, sometimes, it is immoral to waive one’s own protection? Again, how do you handle consent for beings who are unable to consciously grant or withhold it? (Most non-human animals, human babies, comatose humans, etc.)