Freethought & Rationalism Archive

x-member · 03-13-2002, 06:42 PM

Just spoke with a close friend(a physician) and she indicates that animal flesh (if not already spoiled) will not go fetid and/or become poisonous in the digestive tract regardless of the length of the tract, or the length of the meats stay.

Kally, a Registere Nurse , indicates that she has heard of no such thing.

I have sent an e-mail to a family friend (prof. of histology at the University of Alberta) asking the same question. I doubt he will respond that such a thing actually occurs.

My guess: The phenomina doesn't exist and you either have a faulty source, or you're BSing. For someone trying to write code, you're doing an awful lot of posting.

Jon

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:48 PM

Bill Sneddon:
----------------------
You might want to do some additional reading on Contractarian theory. PB is not "manipulating" anything. Non-human animals are not capable of entering into contracts. Therefore, they are excluded from the framework of the theory. They are not "moral agents", and so morality does not apply to them.

That is Contractarianism; no manipulation.

As I said, obviously you disagree with the foundation or the application. Perhaps an elucidation of your own ethical framework would aid in understanding exactly why.
---------------------

Sorry, Bill, but you won't believe how much shit I have to read.

However, it should be clear from the era that the stuff was written (Hobbes?), what the desire was with the notion of a contract. It was to protect as many human beings as it could, as all those who could consent to the rules would be included.

The spirit was one of protection from what I understand. If I'm wrong and it is only self-serving, then I'll happily reject the whole idea as being an intellectual waste of time (-:

If I'm right, then it's the spirit which is the important moving force, the spirit of protection.

x-member · 03-13-2002, 06:50 PM

Wow Spin.. You're sure programing up a storm. Sorry you're too busy to reference one of your dubious facts.

Jon

Mad Kally · 03-13-2002, 06:52 PM

spin said:
I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities.

Why am I not surprised at this answer?

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 06:53 PM

spin:

Not all agree (in fact, many disagree) with the intestine-length-equals-vegetarian hypothesis. Here's a link to a vegetarian page that illustrates that humans are classified correctly as omnivores:

<a href="http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm" target="_blank">vegetarian resource group - Humans are Omnivores</a>

A few excerpts:

Quote:

There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.
...
Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.
...
Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.
...
Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

And here's a qoute from <a href="http://www.emagazine.com/january-february_2002/0102feat1sb1.html" target="_blank">E: The Environmental Magazine</a>

Quote:

According to a 1999 article in the journal The Ecologist, several of our physiological features �clearly indicate a design� for eating meat, including �our stomach�s production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. Furthermore, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.

�While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores�; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud,� the magazine adds. �Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder.�

If people were designed to be strict vegetarians, McArdle expects we would have a specialized colon, specialized teeth and a stomach that doesn�t have a generalized pH�all the better to handle roughage. Tom Billings, a vegetarian for three decades and site editor of BeyondVeg.com, believes humans are natural omnivores. Helping prove it, he says, is the fact that people have a low synthesis rate of the fatty acid DHA and of taurine, suggesting our early ancestors relied on animal foods to get these nutrients. Vitamin B-12, also, isn�t reliably found in plants. That, Billings says, left �animal foods as the reliable source during evolution.�

...

So, the question remains: Are humans natural vegetarians? In the end, whether a person lives a vegetarian lifestyle has less to do with esoteric matters of anatomy and more to do with ethics and personal values. The architecture of the human body offers no simple answers.

So, in my opinion, the humans-are-naturally-herbivores appears to be nothing more than an urban legend dishonestly or ignorantly used by vegetarian promoters. More than one vegetarian sympathizer seems to agree with me.

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:58 PM

spin said:
I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities.

Why am I not surprised at this answer?
-------------------------

All you have to do is fulfil the requirements and I'll do the work. I'm not on internet just to gratify you! I've been looking for a solution to a problem.

echidna · 03-13-2002, 07:05 PM

Am I the only one who�s having trouble digesting this thread ?

x-member · 03-13-2002, 07:06 PM

Just an interesting observation:

Since 7:31PM Pacific time March 12, 2002 Spin has posted 9,080 words. I say again Nine-thousand and Eighty Words.

Spin, just admit that the comment about meat "rotting" in the "gut" was bullshit and I'm sure we'll write it off as a simple imbelishment.

Jon

spin · 03-13-2002, 07:07 PM

Jonnikins:
------------------
Wow Spin.. You're sure programing up a storm. Sorry you're too busy to reference one of your dubious facts.
------------------

Actually, that's the problem. I'm not. You know what I need though. Got any connections? Rather than continuing to nitpick?

------------------------

Mageth is right about surface area, but it is easier to talk about length which is closely related to surface area.

spin · 03-13-2002, 07:11 PM

Jonnikins,

And I have been attached to the computer searching for a lead. At the moment I'm connected to a site that is supposed to be similar in structure to this bulletin board but for the matters I've already said I'm interested in. Are you just hanging on the web to say something clever or are you doing something else?

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

03-13-2002, 06:42 PM	#251
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Just spoke with a close friend(a physician) and she indicates that animal flesh (if not already spoiled) will not go fetid and/or become poisonous in the digestive tract regardless of the length of the tract, or the length of the meats stay. Kally, a Registere Nurse , indicates that she has heard of no such thing. I have sent an e-mail to a family friend (prof. of histology at the University of Alberta) asking the same question. I doubt he will respond that such a thing actually occurs. My guess: The phenomina doesn't exist and you either have a faulty source, or you're BSing. For someone trying to write code, you're doing an awful lot of posting. Jon [ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>

03-13-2002, 06:48 PM	#252
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bill Sneddon: ---------------------- You might want to do some additional reading on Contractarian theory. PB is not "manipulating" anything. Non-human animals are not capable of entering into contracts. Therefore, they are excluded from the framework of the theory. They are not "moral agents", and so morality does not apply to them. That is Contractarianism; no manipulation. As I said, obviously you disagree with the foundation or the application. Perhaps an elucidation of your own ethical framework would aid in understanding exactly why. --------------------- Sorry, Bill, but you won't believe how much shit I have to read. However, it should be clear from the era that the stuff was written (Hobbes?), what the desire was with the notion of a contract. It was to protect as many human beings as it could, as all those who could consent to the rules would be included. The spirit was one of protection from what I understand. If I'm wrong and it is only self-serving, then I'll happily reject the whole idea as being an intellectual waste of time (-: If I'm right, then it's the spirit which is the important moving force, the spirit of protection.

03-13-2002, 06:50 PM	#253
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Wow Spin.. You're sure programing up a storm. Sorry you're too busy to reference one of your dubious facts. Jon

03-13-2002, 06:52 PM	#254
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	spin said: I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities. Why am I not surprised at this answer?

03-13-2002, 06:58 PM	#256
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin said: I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities. Why am I not surprised at this answer? ------------------------- All you have to do is fulfil the requirements and I'll do the work. I'm not on internet just to gratify you! I've been looking for a solution to a problem.

03-13-2002, 07:05 PM	#257
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Am I the only one who�s having trouble digesting this thread ?

03-13-2002, 07:06 PM	#258
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Just an interesting observation: Since 7:31PM Pacific time March 12, 2002 Spin has posted 9,080 words. I say again Nine-thousand and Eighty Words. Spin, just admit that the comment about meat "rotting" in the "gut" was bullshit and I'm sure we'll write it off as a simple imbelishment. Jon

03-13-2002, 07:07 PM	#259
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jonnikins: ------------------ Wow Spin.. You're sure programing up a storm. Sorry you're too busy to reference one of your dubious facts. ------------------ Actually, that's the problem. I'm not. You know what I need though. Got any connections? Rather than continuing to nitpick? ------------------------ Mageth is right about surface area, but it is easier to talk about length which is closely related to surface area.

03-13-2002, 07:11 PM	#260
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jonnikins, And I have been attached to the computer searching for a lead. At the moment I'm connected to a site that is supposed to be similar in structure to this bulletin board but for the matters I've already said I'm interested in. Are you just hanging on the web to say something clever or are you doing something else?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.