| (Close Window) |
| Topic: Every meat eater wants to be a vegan and I can prove it to you |
|
||
|
Every meat eater wants to be a vegan and I can prove it to you. Just think like a caveman: No caveman is going to walk up to a dead dying pig carcass and say "gee that looks delicious", noooo ... mold fungus bacteria maggots ... you see that you are going to want to vomit. So what man does it put the pig in a "smoke house" and smokes it for DAYS until the pig tastes like smoke ... hickory smoke ... from the hickory tree ... A PLANT!! Everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant so you won't want to vomit when you eat it: lettuce, tomato, pickle, catsup, mustard, garlic ... all vegetables. :) It is not the "meat" people want ... it is the "smoke". I cook over a fire for a reason: my vegetables taste like smoke and I do not miss meat in any way shape or form. The vegetables absorb the smoke better than meat, so my vegetables end up tasting even better than meat. Chicken nuggets do not taste like chicken ... Kentucky Fried Chicken tastes like eleven herbs and spices, and if I season my potato nuggets with those same herbs and spices they taste exactly like Kentucky Fried Chicken. :) The trick is to get the right "texture", then you can season it to taste anyway you want. Spaghetti squash cooked in BBQ sauce will taste exactly like pulled pork, only it has a crunch ... to solve this problem, I serve it as a dip for corn chips. Thus, the crunch of the corn chips masks the crunch of the squash ... food magic, an illusion. :) Will be coming out of retirement soon, planing to do some videos on this stuff soon. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Cooking with Joe Joe? |
|
||
|
Interesting theory. But you're missing the fact that our ancient ancestors ate a lot of things that nobody would even consider eating, but did so anyway. I'll name a few: Blue Cheese. It was an accidental, but someone still stuck some in their mouth and enjoyed it and didn't die. Coconuts. If you've never tried to open one just fallen from the tree, good luck. You can open one if somebody shows you how, but how and why did the first human being decide, "I'm gonna get that thing open somehow and then EAT what's inside!" The fool. Durian. It stinks. Balut. It disgusts. Nixtamalization. It works, but how in the heck did anyone figure it out in the first place? So, JoeJoe, I think you are correct that ancient human beings figured out that cooking made those disgusting things taste better, but I disagree that they didn't try the disgusting things in the first place. And as is the case with nixtamalization, the evolution of food included making both meat and vegetables taste better. And let's not even get started on strawberries and blueberries and wheat, which have all been engineered to be almost unrecognisable from their ancestors for reasons other than texture and smoke. Nice try, JoeJoe. But I ain't buyin' it. Human beings eat animals because they taste good, not because they taste like smoke. |
|
||
|
Sorry for the double post, but I wish I had read the Survival thread before posting. I think I understand what JoeJoe is getting at. It's a Kwai Chang Caine sort of thing: just pick nuts and berries and roots and twigs and you'll be healthier and happier. Maybe so. But I'm not sure that Kwai Chang Caine would have eaten a "chocolate peanut butter banana coffee smoothie" either. It seems clear to any thinking person that we human beings have over-processed our food, especially in the industrial era. But it is also true that we have learned the value of some processing. In my post above, I mention nixtamalization, which is a form of food processing that adds nutrition to corn and was indespensable for the diet of our ancestors in the the Western hemisphere. But take fermentation: it both provides storage and health benefits that I doubt JoeJoe would deny. Kimchi,anyone? How about beer and wine (not whisky!)? But let's get back to veganism: fermenting milk products has proven to provide health and taste benefits for thousands of years and in almost all cultures, from joghurt and kefir to cheese, and our ancestors didn't abuse sheep and goats and cows to get their milk like they do today. Ethical veganism? Sure. But for health and taste? My wife would put her homemade kefir into JoeJoe's smoothie, and I would find it literally shocking if anyone would disagree that it would be both healthier and tastier than the vegan versions. Back to processing: few today would argue that those cans of Vienna sausages and boxes of Kraft maccaroni and cheese in your kitchen cupboard are healthy, or that that loaf of Wonderbread will prevent diverticulitis, or that the extra-large bag of Tim's Jalapeno-flavored potato chips ought to be followed by a quart of Bob and Sally's salted-caramel Walnut coconut mint swirl ice cream in order to keep you safe from ovarian cancer. We pretty much all know that human beings (and especially we Americans) have grown addicted to excessively processed, calorie and fat-rich foods that cause long term harm to our bodies. But to deny that it doesn't taste good? My goodness, JoeJoe: if it didn't taste good we wouldn't do it! Our real addiction is to physical gratification. We want buzzes. We want tingled taste buds, alcohol-buzzed nervous systems, sexual stimulation, and to have our ears and eyes filled with exciting sounds and images. But we human beings also yearn for more than Pringles and Jell-O, and American society is slowly figuring that out. What we probably won't figure out is that meat and milk products don't taste good, because they always have and always will, because of evolution (or our Creator) and not because of smoke and texture. |
|
||
|
Not sure what you think those foods have to do what I'm talking about, none of them are "ancient". Blue Cheese and Balut didn't exist until A.D. while coconuts and corn are not "flesh" and are vegan foods to start with. And a banana smoothie is also vegan so I fail to see how that contradicts anything I posted?!? Doesn't sound like you understand what I'm talking about in any way shape or form. Do you know what "vegan" actually means??? And no ... animals do not taste good. If they tasted good, you would not need ketsup on them. If dead animal tasted good, you would eat them raw without seasoning (like you do vegetables). You have to flavor the dead animals to taste like vegetables or they do not taste good at all. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Joe Joe, sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Meat is eaten after it has been been freshly killed, not stumbled upon rotting in the sun. Just like plants. I eat my plants soon after I kill them. I don't eat rotten plants nor rotten meat. Thanks. Oh, and I would never put Ketchup on my meat but some do, just as some dip plants in Ranch sauce. Different strokes for different folks. |
|
||
|
I've always found veggies to be very desirable once you wrapped them with enough bacon... Eating vegetables wrapped with meat that has been seasoned with vegetables - sounds very Zen to me :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not sure what you think those foods have to do what I'm talking about, none of them are "ancient". Blue Cheese and Balut didn't exist until A.D. while coconuts and corn are not "flesh" and are vegan foods to start with. And a banana smoothie is also vegan so I fail to see how that contradicts anything I posted?!? Doesn't sound like you understand what I'm talking about in any way shape or form. Do you know what "vegan" actually means??? And no ... animals do not taste good. If they tasted good, you would not need ketsup on them. If dead animal tasted good, you would eat them raw without seasoning (like you do vegetables). You have to flavor the dead animals to taste like vegetables or they do not taste good at all. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] JoeJoe, I apologize for not understanding you. My bad. You obviously didn't understand me, either; but that's OK--it's your thread. And yes, I know what what vegan means. Again, sorry. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote: You obviously didn't understand me, either; but that's OK--it's your thread. [/quote] No member owns a thread even if they start it. However it is common courtesy to comment respectfully. I see nothing wrong in your posts and joe is last on the list to understand social morays. RESPECTFULLY, I think he's an over inflated windbag of self delusion. Of course I say this with the utmost of respect. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote: You obviously didn't understand me, either; but that's OK--it's your thread. [/quote] No, I very much understand you - I used to be a meat eater but you most likely have never been a vegan. :) When I first had to go vegan because of my health I was depressed about it, especially when walking past a pizza place or a sub shack and smelling the bread and thinking to myself I'd never be able to eat that food again. But after a couple of years of this new lifestyle, I realize that I was wrong ... you eat the same basic foods each and every day of your life: chicken cow pig ... I also remember standing in line at McDonalds looking at menu thinking "I'm tired of eating these same foods each and every day". There are over a hundred and twenty thousand editable plants in nature, you have access to maybe three dozen in your grocery store. I have found all kinds of amazing foods hidden in a secret world man knows little about. Like I was riding my bicycle one day and saw some orange berries on the ground and slammed on the brakes. Took some home, discovered they were palm dates and editable and used for jelly. So I made some jelly and was like wow - this is awesome!! I later went to a local grocery who sells some specialized exotic jellies and looked over all the ones he had ... no palm jelly. I was like "wow - you can't even buy this in a grocery store, this jelly is PRICELESS!!!". A new world is coming ... the meat illusion has been exposed and people are waking up to the reality of what they are eating. When I first moved to this town I was vegetarian, but there were virtually no vegetarian options here in the south and I ended up eating meat again. Today, there are entire sections of the grocery stores dedicated to plant-based meats. The only segment of the food industry that is actually growing is the plant-based food as the demand for vegan rises and the demand for flesh falls. :) All I'm saying is if you gave it a try, you might actually like it. It is better than I thought, and I have no doubts it would be better than you think. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Gorillas have a head shaped the way it is because all those muscles needed to have their diet connect up there. I believe our jaw is designed to eat cooked red meat. |
|
||
|
Perhaps I should have titled the thread "everyone wants to be vegan and just don't know it" because to "prove" it I would need to have you taste my potato nugget demonstration. I recently did it for a homeless alcoholic I often feed, and he is a real true meat eater - the kind of guy that grew up in the mountains eating squirrels and rabbits. He has no desire to be vegan what-so-ever (but even he wants to try the new Beyond Burger). The demonstration works like this: one part potato flour one part water, kneed into dough and then pull off chicken nugget size pieces and fry in oil until golden brown. The first one I had him taste straight out the pan and say "now that is what you think vegan food tastes like - bland no flavor" and he agreed, "exactly". Then I pour a bunch of seasoning herbs on a plate and have him dip the nugget in it until it is cover in the seasoning and have him try that one. He threw the fork on the table and said "you ***!". I was like "what?". He said "it tastes like chicken". I said no it doesn't ... chicken doesn't taste like chicken, KFC tastes like eleven herbs and spices and if I put those same herbs and spices on my potato nuggets they taste exactly like KFC. :) Anything can be made to taste like lemon and peppers, not just chicken. Chicken nuggets do not taste like chicken ... they taste like sweet and sour sauce, barbecue sauce, ranch, etc etc etc. The only thing the chicken is actually for is texture. :) It is like a new form of magic for me. My whole diet has become an exciting world of flavors that I never knew existed. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Gorillas have a head shaped the way it is because all those muscles needed to have their diet connect up there. I believe our jaw is designed to eat cooked red meat. [/quote] You do realize that gorillas are vegan right?? [img]http://joejoeonline.com/teeth.jpg[/img] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
The world's oldest living dog is actually a vegan, did you know that?? I didn't believe it when I first heard, I had to google it ... sure enough, not only is the world's oldest living dog a vegan so was the previous world's oldest living dog. There are videos on YouTube of dogs actually pulling carrots out of the ground and eating them ... no joke ... we're talking mind blown here!! We were lied to!! https://www.care2.com/greenliving/vegetarian-dog-lives-to-189-years.html -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Gorillas have a head shaped the way it is because all those muscles needed to have their diet connect up there. I believe our jaw is designed to eat cooked red meat. [/quote] You do realize that gorillas are vegan right?? [img]http://joejoeonline.com/teeth.jpg[/img] -JoeJoe [/quote] I'm sorry but no. Gorillas often bust open termite mounds to eat as well as eating ants. I know your passionate but don't let that blind you. |
|
||
|
I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective in that I was vegan for several years when I was in my early twenties. I enjoy the taste of meat - when cooked properly. Which is the actual problem. Most people don't seem to know how to cook, and thus must cover mediocre cooking skills with too many seasonings and sauces. A good cut of beef, cooked in a bit of butter with a dash of salt is delicious. When I cook veggies for myself I tend to just heat them up a bit and eat them, as I do enjoy their natural flavors. Poorly prepared veggies are just as nasty as poorly prepared meats. It's all about balance, though. If I eat too many of various types of veggies now, it wreaks havoc on my system. I am significantly healthier now than I was then. I have also met some very unhealthy vegans (Both massively overweight and underweight) who weren't paying attention to their bodies. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for diets, it's a matter of exploring what works for each individual. Honestly I think the only universal thing would be if everyone learned how to cook their own food instead of relying on boxes and processed foods. It's surprisingly easy to make most things from scratch and doesn't take that much time once you get proficiency in the basics of cooking. So, sorry to say, but I categorically disagree with the statement that all meat eaters wish they were vegan. |
|
||
|
JoeJoe, you obviously truly didn't understand me. Yes,I was once vegan, but for ethical reasons. I remain 99% vegetarian, also for ethical reasons. My overly long posts were musings regarding your request to do a thought experiment: think like a caveman. My point--that cavemen opened coconuts and such--was that it does not surprise me that they ate meat that we might have found appetising. But they also figured out out to cook it--to process it. They also learned how ferment milk products, andd vegans decline to eat milk products, fermented or not, even though the health and taste benefits of something like kefir is undeniable. In other words, we human beings have learned to process food in order to add flavor and taste, not to cover up the rotten taste of meat or the nasty whang of goat's milk. That's the shorter version of what I was trying to say, and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. You started with cavemen, and I took us to how and why we process food. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: I'm sorry but no. Gorillas often bust open termite mounds to eat as well as eating ants. [/quote] I don't consider insects to be "flesh" and they lack the pain receptors that animals have. I have eaten grasshopper, very tasty. When I really wanna freak someone out with my diet I eat a grub in front of them ... that is a nice word for "maggot". They are the only creature I know of that can turn protein back into carbohydrates, which makes them a better choice for a meal than the dead carcass they are eating. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: Honestly I think the only universal thing would be if everyone learned how to cook their own food instead of relying on boxes and processed foods. It's surprisingly easy to make most things from scratch and doesn't take that much time once you get proficiency in the basics of cooking. So, sorry to say, but I categorically disagree with the statement that all meat eaters wish they were vegan. [/quote] That has been my point with these posts ... the food in the store is a scam ... the longer the expiration date on the box, the shorter your life will be. And I would have disagreed with the vegan thing a few years ago myself. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: I'm sorry but no. Gorillas often bust open termite mounds to eat as well as eating ants. [/quote] I don't consider insects to be "flesh" and they lack the pain receptors that animals have. I have eaten grasshopper, very tasty. When I really wanna freak someone out with my diet I eat a grub in front of them ... that is a nice word for "maggot". They are the only creature I know of that can turn protein back into carbohydrates, which makes them a better choice for a meal than the dead carcass they are eating. -JoeJoe [/quote] You do not get to make up your own definitions. A vegan does not eat food derived from animal products. Insects are animals. That is the end of the discussion. Gorillas rest insects, they are not vegan. This is not a matter of opinion I'm sorry. We don't get ti massage definitions to suit ourselves. Again I get your passion and it is great, but let's use the same terms. It makes communication possible and avoids misunderstandings. I don't want your point lost. And insects have the same if not more refined instincts than many animals. They hunt, they build and do all sorts of things you want to pass off as intelligent in other species. Just because we can't figure out if they feel pain in no way means they can't. They may feel it in a way we simply can't detect. Look at bee behavior and compare it with wolves. Pretty close in lots of cases. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: You do not get to make up your own definitions. A vegan does not eat food derived from animal products. Insects are animals. That is the end of the discussion. [/quote] No, it is not the end of the discussion ... many vegans are divided on several issues, including insects. Some vegans will not eat honey like myself, because even though they come from flowers it is technically bee vomit. Some vegans will not eat mushrooms because they are technically not "plants" while other like myself will. Just like anything else, there are gray areas. I don't have a problem eating insects, I do not consider them "animals". Animals are covered in "fur" - insects are not. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Are fish covered in fur? Are birds? Are reptiles? This is the problem with making up your own definitions. Regardless of your own justifications insects are classified by the world at large as animals. The definition of vegan is not about animals feeling pain, it is about using animals as commodities. |
|
||
|
Snakes don't have fur - are they not animals? Plants respond to damage (pain), and will communicate danger to neighboring plants when damaged. Gorillas eat meat, btw. It's just not a major part of their diet. Things in nature eat anything that seems like it might just be food. Or, in some cases, because said thing in nature likes how the thing they are about to eat makes them feel. I read an article a while back about jungle cats eating magic mushrooms, seemingly specifically to get high. Farmers in my area have frequently told me about cows eating the grass and grains around a silo that have begun to ferment and acting drunk. Now, I personally don't care what you or anyone else eats. I generally like finding people who eat differently to me so I can try new foods. But there is no truth in the idea that a vegan diet in inherently healthier. A conscientious diet is healthier - whether it includes meat/dairy or not. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Are fish covered in fur? Are birds? Are reptiles? [/quote] Everything in nature is covered - trees are covered in bark, fish are covered in scales, birds are covered in feathers, animals are covered in fur, dirt is covered in grass, human beings are covered in skin (that's right, we are NOT "animals"). Insects are covered in "setae", stiff hair-like bristles. I'm not sure what you would call the covering on reptiles, it seems to be something of a cross between skin and scales. Either way, I don't consider reptiles to be "clean food" but I've never had the need or desire to eat one so I haven't researched that. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: Things in nature eat anything that seems like it might just be food.[/quote] Everything in nature is food for something else ... one day, we'll be eaten by worms. Today, the worm eats the bird ... tomorrow the bird dies and the worm eats the bird. The worm and the bird are the same. "We are all one". That is why it is important to respect what we eat, something that is seriously lacking in the world that we live in today. There are many great reasons to be vegan other than your own diet or animal suffering ... research it. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Check this one out ... people don't even know that "sausage" comes from a living breathing animal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZF_HNRpIA0 -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
And when you are ready to see why you should hunt your own meat instead of the grocery store, just watch this video from Paul McCartney ... the "factory farm" did not exist a hundred years ago, it is not like it used to be, we have been lied to - the pictures they put on the boxes are lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql8xkSYvwJs -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Today, the worm eats the bird ... tomorrow the bird dies and the worm eats the bird. The worm and the bird are the same. "We are all one". [/quote] That should read "today the bird eats the worm, tomorrow the bird dies and the worm eats the bird" ... typo. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Joe Joe again you can't make up definitions. Humans are animals and so ate insects. You can't redefine science. Sorry. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: I'm sorry but no. Gorillas often bust open termite mounds to eat as well as eating ants. [/quote] I don't consider insects to be "flesh" and they lack the pain receptors that animals have. I have eaten grasshopper, very tasty. When I really wanna freak someone out with my diet I eat a grub in front of them ... that is a nice word for "maggot". They are the only creature I know of that can turn protein back into carbohydrates, which makes them a better choice for a meal than the dead carcass they are eating. -JoeJoe [/quote] Insects are animals. Not plants. |
|
||
| Will a Vegan eat a Venus Fly Trap? |
|
||
| Sounds like we've got a Vegan who wants to be a meat eater- and I can prove it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: And no ... animals do not taste good.[/quote] Three words to prove that you're wrong here: Sa Shi Mi |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote: . . . joe is last on the list to understand social morays.[/quote] But that's hardly surprising: morays are eels: meat. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: There are videos on YouTube of dogs actually pulling carrots out of the ground and eating them ... no joke ... we're talking mind blown here!![/quote] Why's that mindblowing? Dogs have been bred to be omnivores. Show us the YouTube video of wolves pulling carrots out of the ground and eating them. Or Jackals doing the same. Or Hyenas. Or Dingos. Or Fennecs. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: I'm sorry but no. Gorillas often bust open termite mounds to eat as well as eating ants.[/quote] I don't consider insects to be "flesh" . . . .[/quote] What you consider them isn't really relevant; they're certainly not vegetables, so anything that eats them certainly isn't a vegan. |
|
||
| Vegan is a Native American word that means "bad hunter". |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: You do not get to make up your own definitions. A vegan does not eat food derived from animal products. Insects are animals. That is the end of the discussion. [/quote] No, it is not the end of the discussion ... many vegans are divided on several issues, including insects. Some vegans will not eat honey like myself, because even though they come from flowers it is technically bee vomit. Some vegans will not eat mushrooms because they are technically not "plants" while other like myself will. Just like anything else, there are gray areas. I don't have a problem eating insects, I do not consider them "animals". Animals are covered in "fur" - insects are not. -JoeJoe [/quote] No. Animals are not covered in fur. Mammals are. Reptiles are Animals, birds are Animals, fish are Animals, Corals are Animals, insects are animals. It matters not what Vegans are divided on. It is Zoology. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, S2000magician wrote: they're certainly not vegetables, so anything that eats them certainly isn't a vegan.[/quote] If you want to get technical with words, "vegetables" do not actually exist. Vegetable is culinary term used by chefs, it does not actually identify anything in nature. http://www.tlc.com/tlcme/botanists-are-saying-vegetables-dont-actually-exist/ -JoeJoe |
|
||
| I am a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate vegetables (childhood incident: giant broccoli, bad clown). |
|
||
|
The best explanation I have ever heard was from a friend of mine you would all know but I won't use his name. Not sure but I think he is not full vegan. But he said originally it was for health reasons, then ethical considerations, now he just does it to hack people off. It was a hilarious lunch. Landmark that was hilarious as well. |
|
||
|
Geez. You go away for a few hours.... This is starting to feel like the Free World Charter thread. Without going into whether insects are fish that drink elephant milk, there is a a lot of truth to what JoeJoe is saying; which is that we're better off eating the freshest food - food consumed as close to "being alive" as possible. In addition it's vital that the food itself is properly nourished, and as much as possible unadulterated, while it's growing or living. I'm with JoeJoe in that I'd rather eat something found/killed in a forest, which is a healthy ecosystem; than something grown on most farms, or killed in most slaughterhouses. I'm not 100% vegan - I eat meat about twice a month, usually while out with others. I also put half and half in my coffee, use butter at times, things like that; so I'm no fanatic. Not one of my friends has ever gotten an unsolicited word of advice. Like a cliche', everything started going downhill when I turned forty. My hair started thinning, the family arthritis showed up and everything started cracking and popping. I never ran out of breath before, even though I smoked. Afterwards I started avoiding stairs whenever I could. I was offered pills for the arthritis, told to stop smoking, eat better, exercise etc. I've always had a kind of phobia about pills because every one of my family members who was ill, [i]and never seemed to get better[/i], took a lot of pills. So I took the last three pieces of advice to heart and started to make changes. I had a young son, and I wasn't going to be an old man at forty five. I got a juicer, started walking and taking the stairs, cut back on the smoking, yada yada yada. I also started reading a LOT about natural healing, because I wasn't going to take any pills. This led to learning about, trophology, the chemical makeup of food; and the affinity each has for various functions of the body, and it's organs. I also learned about what I think is the MOST important part of maintaining health, which is fasting and caloric reduction. So this is where I'm coming from when I say that there is a lot to what JoeJoe is saying. I don't believe a lot of the things he says are such absolutes - "everything is either healing or killing you", "man was MEANT to do this or that" "ALL illness is caused by malnutrition"; but the basic concepts are correct. I think we've become so complacent, used to our desires being met with less and less effort; and so increasingly in need of instant gratification, that we've lost sight of what we really need to be healthy. Instead, like with many other things, we accept what we're told...because we're busy. They say it's good enough - we eat it - we don't die - it tastes good - it looks like food - how bad can it be - they must be right. But like any one cigarette is probably not going to kill you, the effects are cumulative. We're made of chemicals, and what goes into our bodies are chemicals. Some of the interactions are beneficial, and some are harmful; but I think the biggest problem is that many can tolerated. We can tolerate Red dye #947 and high fructose corn syrup, but there is nothing of nutritional value in them; they exist only for appearance and preservation. Once in a while...sure; but if everything you eat has a bunch of such things then you're health will suffer, slowly but surely. Do I think that there's a conspiracy of doctors and companies? No, but it's another area where capitalism without morality has caused a great deal of damage. Doctors have to work within a system where health care decisions are affected by profit motive. If you work for Frito Lay your job is to sell Cheetos - especially since studies have shown that they won't kill you...right away. Then there's the manipulation of data, and the propaganda; as JoeJoe pointed out. "Milk! It does a body good!" "EVERY Olympian drank milk!" Milk, aside from mothers milk and raw milk, is s#it. And it's hard to trust raw milk anymore, because...look at the cows! They can barely walk! Aside from the fact that it comes from antibiotic ridden, malnourished, creature which has lived abominably; the pasteurization process destroys the nutrients. The vitamin D and the calcium are added afterwards. Yet everyone knows that you just HAVE to drink it. As far as "food as medicine" is concerned, I think this is where we form up and take sides, like we do with everything. Since food, like drugs, are made of chemicals, it's logical to consume the chemicals that will be beneficial for your health/condition. But we go to extremes. One side says stay away from doctors, and the other side says to always do as the doctor says. Both are wrong, and both usually have some financial motivation for their extremism. There are things that can be treated slowly and with lifestyle changes, and some things that need medical intervention and monitoring; but, to me, the key distinction between the extremes is that so many of the conditions that we treat are chronic, and have become so because of the way live. Obesity, diabetes, IBS, on and on, are all things that can be prevented to a large extent. It's annoying to me that those who yell the loudest about health care, never mention the fact that many people are sick because they just didn't take care of themselves. This is something I'm pretty passionate about, not only for my own experience, but because it intertwines with so many other social ills - especially regarding costs. Not surprisingly, it's also an area where money in politics, and the influence it buys, has a devastating effect on food production and the manipulation of information. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, S2000magician wrote: they're certainly not vegetables, so anything that eats them certainly isn't a vegan.[/quote] If you want to get technical with words, "vegetables" do not actually exist. Vegetable is culinary term used by chefs, it does not actually identify anything in nature.[/quote] I don't want to get technical with words, but vegetables certainly do exist. The fact that it's a culinary term rather than a botanical one doesn't change the nature of vegetables, nor the nature of insects. Insects aren't plants. Happy now? |
|
||
| Using mammal and animal synonymously is an all too common blunder nowadays it seems. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Are fish covered in fur? Are birds? Are reptiles? [/quote] Everything in nature is covered - trees are covered in bark, fish are covered in scales, birds are covered in feathers, animals are covered in fur, dirt is covered in grass, human beings are covered in skin (that's right, we are NOT "animals"). Insects are covered in "setae", stiff hair-like bristles. I'm not sure what you would call the covering on reptiles, it seems to be something of a cross between skin and scales. Either way, I don't consider reptiles to be "clean food" but I've never had the need or desire to eat one so I haven't researched that. -JoeJoe [/quote] So Insects and Humans are not animals but Plants are? Maybe books are for more than just starting fires Joe Joe. Might wanna preorder Senor Fabuloso's book ;) |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: So Insects and Humans are not animals but Plants are? [/quote] If you want to define "insects" as "animals" then you would also have to define plants, reptiles, birds, trees, and humans as "animals" also. I'll continue to define "animals" as creatures covered in fur, and "insects" as creatures covered in setae, and "humans" as creatures covered in skin. I'm not going to argue the definition of words. I've told you what definitions I'm using, to apply your defitions to the words I use to change the meaning of what I say so you can make jokes if not productive. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Ok. So do you make up your own definitions of sub atomic particles as well? Electrons? What about Mathematics? Or do you draw the line at inventing your own Biology? And no, I am not joking. |
|
||
|
Joe Joe I'm pretty certain that this is why you have so much trouble communicating. We have agreed upon language and words mean things. You can not just make up your own definitions and then stomp and get angry when others point it out. This is not how society works. I'm not being mean I'm being serious and respectful. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: So Insects and Humans are not animals but Plants are? [/quote] If you want to define "insects" as "animals" then you would also have to define plants, reptiles, birds, trees, and humans as "animals" also. I'll continue to define "animals" as creatures covered in fur, and "insects" as creatures covered in setae, and "humans" as creatures covered in skin. I'm not going to argue the definition of words. I've told you what definitions I'm using, to apply your defitions to the words I use to change the meaning of what I say so you can make jokes if not productive. -JoeJoe [/quote] What are Mammals covered with? |
|
||
|
Since Humans are classified by not having fur (though what is fur but compact hair and there is a plethora of hairy guys out there), I guess evolution doesn't even enter into the equations. I've been on a high protein low carb diet for about a year and lost a lot of weight and drastically improved my health. Most of my protein comes from dried beans, quinoa, and high fiber cereals with protein shakes. But, I still have meat occasionally. Now, I'm not one to knock someone who found something that works well for them but the title of the thread invites criticism IMO... |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: What are Mammals covered with? [/quote] Mammals are covered in fur. Human beings are covered in skin. Human beings could be a hybrid creature of some sort, a mixture of mammal and virus - the only other creature to behave the way humans do is the virus (ie: destroying it's environment until it dies with it). -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: Now, I'm not one to knock someone who found something that works well for them but the title of the thread invites criticism IMO... [/quote] Scientific research has to be criticized, I don't hide from criticism either. I welcome it. Nobody would learn anything if we only talked to people that agree with us. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Science questions itself. And in a logical manner, using facts and proof not just perception bias. Asking questions is good. Getting answers is even better. But you can't make up your own definitions to words and just observe without recording and doing studies and proper research and claim your findings are valid and doctors are wrong. Well you can I guess. You just shouldn't be expected to be taken very seriously. You just can't claim humans are not mammals in the spirit of questioning things. Well again you can but that is proclamation not question. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: But you can't make up your own definitions to words and just observe without recording and doing studies and proper research and claim your findings are valid and doctors are wrong. [/quote] All words are "made up", they don't exist in nature ... duh. All the countries of the world use different languages, nobody agrees on language ... our language has been "confounded". Even the various dictionaries do not always agree on what a particular word means - in some cases a word can even have multiple definitions that actually contradict each other. When I'm talking to someone that isn't using the same definition, I explain what definition I am using. The brain doesn't think in "words", it thinks in "images" ... when you hear words, your brain has to translate them into images. Instead of trying to tell me my word is wrong, understand the definitions I am using so you can get the same image I have. That is why I say "if you do not SEE an example in nature..." ... images are more powerful than words, you learn more actually observing nature than you do reading about it. Words can be used to manipulate people just like numbers can (ie: "cook the books"). I'm done arguing on what an "animal" is ... I told you what the words means to me, if you have a different definition fine. That does not change the meaning of what I said using the definition I used. You don't really care to know what image I have of an "animal" in my mind, all you want to do is play word games - I'm not here for that, I don't have time for that, I don't play games, I'm an adult, games are for children. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
If you'd understand what I just said Danny, you would get along with people much better ... you need to quit trying to act like you are the smartest person in the room and start trying to understand what other people are trying to say. :) Anytime you get the urge to say someone is wrong based on the definition of a word, you should seek to find out what definition they are using. It resolves a lot of conflicts before they arise. I like the phrase "what do you mean by that?" :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Joe Joe I'm getting tired of your lashing out like a child when I have treated you with nothing but respect. Please stop. You do not have to act like this, especially when you don't mind criticism. Or do you have different definitions for that phrase as well? Stop with the duh stuff please. This is the second time I am asking nicely. You are the one acting smarter than everyone. Then you get angry when shown actual facts. It makes talking with you impossible because you have to define your Joe Joe language. Everyone agrees what things mean and that is used to communicate. It would be faster and more efficient of you just used any of the established languages instead of forcing everyone to adapt yours in a desperate attempt to always be right. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: What are Mammals covered with? [/quote] Mammals are covered in fur. Human beings are covered in skin. Human beings could be a hybrid creature of some sort, a mixture of mammal and virus - the only other creature to behave the way humans do is the virus (ie: destroying it's environment until it dies with it). -JoeJoe [/quote] Incorrect. Mammals are covered in hair. Not fur. And they give birth to live young and they are warm blooded and have a spine. |
|
||
| Joe Joe why is it that everyone must respect your views and you get to lash out at others? In this thread alone you have said some of the most uninformed crap possible and still people are respectful. You give the duh nonsense like a third grade recess taunt. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: What are Mammals covered with? [/quote] Mammals are covered in fur. Human beings are covered in skin. Human beings could be a hybrid creature of some sort, a mixture of mammal and virus - the only other creature to behave the way humans do is the virus (ie: destroying it's environment until it dies with it). -JoeJoe [/quote] Incorrect. Mammals are covered in hair. Not fur. And they give birth to live young and they are warm blooded and have a spine. [/quote] This is why bats are not birds Joe Joe, although "seeing" them in nature, they would appear to be. Thanks to Linnaeus' universally accepted Classification of All Living Things (science) we have a knowledge beyond just what we see. Kind of like your subterranean plant root behaviour. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, magicfish wrote: What are Mammals covered with?[/quote] Mammals are covered in fur. Human beings are covered in skin.[/quote] Given that you seem to revere words developed by science, you should honor this: Scientific classification of humans (homo sapiens, the only extant human species): Kingdom: [b]Animalia[/b] (Interpretation: humans are animals) Phylum: Chordata Class: [b]Mammalia[/b] (Interpretation: humans are mammals) Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens You're welcome to define words however you want, but please do so with the understanding that you're often wrong. As you are here. |
|
||
| I seem to have scared off JoeJoe. |
|
||
|
You should have been here 4 pages ago. There are some other threads that can use that ability. Joe Joe is not a fan of facts and proof. |
|
||
|
Not afraid of nothing, just more important things to do than sit here and argue over the definition of words. Believe what you want to believe. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [M]ore important things to do than sit here and argue over the definition of words.[/quote] Especially when you're wrong. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Scientific research has to be criticized, I don't hide from criticism either. I welcome it. Nobody would learn anything if we only talked to people that agree with us. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] [b]AND...[/b] [quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not afraid of nothing, just more important things to do than sit here and argue over the definition of words. Believe what you want to believe. -JoeJoe [/quote] Not sure if you are a paradox or just unaware that you have a tendency to contradict yourself. The second quote really contradicts the whole purpose of this thread that you created. |
|
||
|
Not exactly; a seed has to grow before it can bear fruit ... if I plant a seed of information in your mind, I don't expect it to bear fruit today (meaning I don't expect you to agree with me today). And here is what I learned from this thread: without actually tasting my potato nuggets or vegan steak, I cannot "prove" it tastes better than your meat. The demonstration I described it much more powerful than a written account of it. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Let's try this... You are asking us to swallow what your are offering without allowing any scrutiny. When we call you on it you move the goal post and toss out the same tomato seed defense; though rehashed to appear as new evidence. Now stay with me on this... Remember when you were on your bike and saw the (palm dates?) fruit on the road? Now, you didn't just pull over and pop one in your mouth and kept riding did you? No, instead you did research and found out what they were and how to make jam out of them. I admire you conviction for a healthier lifestyle, as convictions, principles, and accountability is soon becoming a thing of the past. However, you chose to share your ideas on a forum and not a blog which is designed to create a dialog and [b]a debate[/b] at times. Food for thought and all that... |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On May 24, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Scientific research has to be criticized, I don't hide from criticism either. I welcome it. Nobody would learn anything if we only talked to people that agree with us. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] [b]AND...[/b] [quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not afraid of nothing, just more important things to do than sit here and argue over the definition of words. Believe what you want to believe. -JoeJoe [/quote] Not sure if you are a paradox or just unaware that you have a tendency to contradict yourself. The second quote really contradicts the whole purpose of this thread that you created. [/quote] He is very aware, he simply does not care. It is easier to change definitions, obviscate, move tthe goal posts and be indignant than to admit you might not be perfect and always right about everything. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: You are asking us to swallow what your are offering without allowing any scrutiny. When we call you on it you move the goal post and toss out the same tomato seed defense; though rehashed to appear as new evidence. [/quote] I can't ask you to swallow anything over a computer; usually when I give this speech I do so while cooking potato nuggets for people to try. I wasn't planning to even post this here, but the topic came up so I figured what the heck. The fact is virtually every food industry is shrinking except vegan ... people are aware of the fact that plant based meat is healthier, tastes better, and it better for the environment, not to mention the fact that factory farms are foul and disgusting. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
I agree about the factory farms. Unfortunately it cost more to eat better. I manage by simplifying my diet, but it may not work for everyone. A year ago everyone in our office got on a health kick and set up a challenge ($). We all changed our eating habits and reached our weight loss goal. Diets as a rule do not work, but some of us have made it a lifestyle change and continue though the challenge has passed. Fast forward a year and we have new hires in the office. One of them is drastically overweight and decided to join our new challenge. He wants to participate but is not committed to the goal. He simply doesn't want it bad enough. So we let him do him and we continue to follow our path. This thread is similar as in a you can bring a horse to water... kind of argument, but with the exception that you aren't entertaining legitimate questions. You may notice that I have not been pushing my high protein low carb; black bean and quinoa diet, on anyone nor is anyone else. Mine works for me but may not work for others. There are several roads to better living... |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 27, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: You are asking us to swallow what your are offering without allowing any scrutiny. When we call you on it you move the goal post and toss out the same tomato seed defense; though rehashed to appear as new evidence. [/quote] I can't ask you to swallow anything over a computer; usually when I give this speech I do so while cooking potato nuggets for people to try. I wasn't planning to even post this here, but the topic came up so I figured what the heck. The fact is virtually every food industry is shrinking except vegan ... people are aware of the fact that plant based meat is healthier, tastes better, and it better for the environment, not to mention the fact that factory farms are foul and disgusting. -JoeJoe [/quote] This is ridiculous. "Tastes better" is purely subjective. People are not aware that plant based meat (Is that even a term for anyone but you?) tastes better. YOU throw that out there as if it is the law of gravity or something. But if every food industry is shrinking except vegan then it should just all sort itself out anyhow. Since you plan to live forever you will get to see this happen. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: I agree about the factory farms. Unfortunately it cost more to eat better. I manage by simplifying my diet, but it may not work for everyone. [/quote] Only if you eat processed food; if you have the time to cook your own it costs less. But not everybody can afford to do that. It seems to be always time or money. Lots of truth in your words, I didn't just change my diet ... I changed my entire lifestyle. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: This is ridiculous. "Tastes better" is purely subjective. People are not aware that plant based meat (Is that even a term for anyone but you?) tastes better. YOU throw that out there as if it is the law of gravity or something. [/quote] No it is not ridiculous, people that try vegan food like it - that is why it is the fastest growing segment of the food industry and why virtually all non-vegan segments are shrinking. :) https://www.forbes.com/sites/katrinafox/2017/12/27/heres-why-you-should-turn-your-business-vegan-in-2018/#6e5000b72144 -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Dear Mother Nature, We thank you for the plants and animals, warmth and Oxygen you provide for us to live. But I have a question if you don't mind. Some guy in the internet is saying that there is such thing as a shrinking non vegan segment. Could you please tell me what that is. Thanks. Hoping for the next sunrise and rainfall to keep us all alive, Magicfish. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not afraid of nothing . . .[/quote] Except, perhaps, admitting that you're wrong about humans not being animals and not being mammals. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 28, 2018, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On May 27, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not afraid of nothing . . .[/quote] Except, perhaps, admitting that you're wrong about humans not being animals and not being mammals. [/quote] Oh come on be fair. He is wrong about a lot more than that and won't admit it. |
|
||
| But he is consistent! You have to give him that :) |
|
||
| How about this Joey? When all the animals that eat meat stop and become vegan so will I :) Till then you need to sell your position to them in order to make a difference. The last tiger I saw was looking a little peckish and of course it has to be the meat he eats. Right? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 28, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: But he is consistent! You have to give him that :) [/quote] Yes consistently wrong. |
|
||
|
Wrong is not the right word; as it has a lot of seemingly personal hostility behind it, JoeJoe's issue is that he is portraying beliefs as absolutes - which don't hold up to scrutiny. If I had to choose between a fast food burger or a black bean burger... I would choose the bean burger, though if not available Wendy's still makes a decent burger :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: as it has a lot of seemingly personal hostility behind it, JoeJoe's issue is that he is portraying beliefs as absolutes - which don't hold up to scrutiny. [/quote] There is absolutely no hostility coming from me what-so-ever ... I tell you what I know, I don't hurl insults or make childrens puns against others if they choose to ignore me. Just because I am firm in my beliefs and do not back down when confronted does not make me hostile. Meat is a lie and people believe the lie ... where does the horse get it's protein?? Grass. All the largest strongest animals are vegan. The only US olympic weight lifter to score a medal in Rio is a vegan ... protein comes from plants, not animals. No animal makes it's own protein. I don't think he even counts calories, he just eats: "Instead of strict limitations, Farris follows a few simple rules: He eats when he’s hungry. He eats what makes his body feel good in training. And he aims for a broad range of vegan-friendly foods." https://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/vegan-diet-american-olympic-weightlifter-kendrick-farris/ -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
I just noticed his quote on that page, which is exactly how I'm feeling: "When I was sleeping on the floor and praying for better days always knew a time would come for me to let my light shine in a dark world so I tell the truth I lie not, have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" Can it be so ... have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?? [[sigh]] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
The hostility is not coming from you. If I was unclear on that then I apologize. I do stand by my absolutes statement though. Horses and cattle can metabolize grass and convert it to protein. We cannot. So that is not a valid counter position. There is a long [b]history[/b] of the populace in the past who ate primarily vegetables (with rare occasions of meat) who were; for the most part, malnourished. Perhaps one of the smarter members can find how much land (acreage) is required to feed 1 person on an all veggy diet. I work with some very dedicated body builders who informed me that the reason they consume those protein shakes (pre-workout/post work out) instead of just eating more chicken breast, is that those protein (high end) powders most closely match the protein signature of human muscle proteins. (sorry for the run on sentence) So in theory the best protein for humans is human protein. Soylent green anyone? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: I work with some very dedicated body builders who informed me that the reason they consume those protein shakes (pre-workout/post work out) instead of just eating more chicken breast, is that those protein (high end) powders most closely match the protein signature of human muscle proteins.[/quote] Do they have olympic medals for weight lifting?? I'm just curious. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Nope. Just dedicated to body building. 1 of them competes. |
|
||
|
Joe wrote, "All the largest strongest animals are vegan." Lions? Tigers? Polar Bears? Great White Shark? Salt Water Crocodile? Orca? Whale Shark? Giant Squid? Grizzly Bear? No vegans yet. Help me out here Joe Joe. |
|
||
|
Those animals have muscles that can run fast and over power prey; they have short digestive systems to eliminate excess body weight. The elephant is the strongest land animal in the world, his trunk alone can pick up over six hundred pounds ... and he doesn't do any exercise to obtain them, he just eats plants. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Oh ok. Sorry, I thought you said "all". ...sigh |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, magicfish wrote: Oh ok. Sorry, I thought you said "all". ...sigh [/quote] Compared to elephants, blue whales are small and weak. Oh . . . and they're not mammals because they're not covered in fur. Fake milk, apparently. |
|
||
|
They are "cetaceans". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: They are "cetaceans". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea -JoeJoe [/quote] First line: Cetacea (/sɪˈteɪʃə/) are a widely distributed and diverse clade of aquatic MAMMALS |
|
||
|
Don't worry. Joe Joe will be along shorty with a false dilemma and his own definition. Please stand by. |
|
||
|
Do you think she really wishes she was a Vegan? [youtube]PIAgFDu2-oc[/youtube] |
|
||
| Clearly she does. And bravo on finding the video of the hottest chick I ever saw eat a 72 oz steak. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: They are "cetaceans". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea [/quote] Therefore, they are mammals. Quoting the first sentence from your - [b][i]your[/i][/b] - Wikipedia citation, above: [i]Cetacea are a widely distributed and diverse clade of aquatic [b]mammals[/b] that . . . .[/i] So, according to [i]your[/i] authority, not all mammals are covered in fur. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 30, 2018, S2000magician wrote: Therefore, they are mammals. [/quote] "aquatic mammals" My favorite vegan joke: "you must really love animals" ... "no, I just really hate plants". -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 30, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: My favorite vegan joke: "you must really love animals" ... "no, I just really hate plants". -JoeJoe [/quote] Yeah, well Jack made the joke on page two of this thread. But maybe you don't know who Jack is? Maybe you don't know who I am? Do you know our names? Do you come here for conversation or to preach? If you want to preach, OK. I'll sit and listen. But if you want to have a conversation, you might actually spend some time trying to understand the conversation of others, which might (but does not necessarily) include a bit of respect for who the others are. You could start with names. Then maybe you could move on to listening. Or don't. Just preach. Preach on, Pastor JoeJoe! |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 30, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 30, 2018, S2000magician wrote: Therefore, they are mammals.[/quote] "aquatic mammals"[/quote] So . . . mammals. And you're the one who says he doesn't want to argue over the meaning of words. |
|
||
|
I also bet that JoeJoe doesn't know your name, S2000magician. It's a minor point, but it says something about this conversation. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 30, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 30, 2018, S2000magician wrote: Therefore, they are mammals. [/quote] "aquatic mammals" -JoeJoe [/quote] Perhaps you may wish to divert some time into discovering new natural hair products... since you are having issues with splitting hairs... :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 30, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote: I also bet that JoeJoe doesn't know your name, S2000magician. It's a minor point, but it says something about this conversation.[/quote] You just brought an idea to mind: has anyone heard from Magnus recently? I just realized that I haven't seen him around here for quite a while. |
|
||
| He posts at Facebook occasionally, and I have PMd him within the last month or two. He is doing well, as far as I know. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 22, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: blah blah... No caveman is going to walk up to a dead dying pig carcass and say "gee that looks delicious", noooo ... mold fungus bacteria maggots ... you see that you are going to want to vomit. blah... -JoeJoe [/quote] what a totally silly way to start an argument. How about... " no caveman is going to walk up to a rotting apple and say 'gee that looks delicious' ... noooo mold, fungus, bacteria, maggots ... you see that you are going to want to vomit. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 14, 2018, art85y wrote: [quote]On May 22, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: blah blah... No caveman is going to walk up to a dead dying pig carcass and say "gee that looks delicious", noooo ... mold fungus bacteria maggots ... you see that you are going to want to vomit. blah... -JoeJoe [/quote] what a totally silly way to start an argument. How about... " no caveman is going to walk up to a rotting apple and say 'gee that looks delicious' ... noooo mold, fungus, bacteria, maggots ... you see that you are going to want to vomit. [/quote] To ask JoeJoe for consistency and logic is an absolute waste of your time. |
|
||
| Thanks for the heads up. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective in that I was vegan for several years when I was in my early twenties. I enjoy the taste of meat - when cooked properly. Which is the actual problem. Most people don't seem to know how to cook, and thus must cover mediocre cooking skills with too many seasonings and sauces. A good cut of beef, cooked in a bit of butter with a dash of salt is delicious. When I cook veggies for myself I tend to just heat them up a bit and eat them, as I do enjoy their natural flavors. Poorly prepared veggies are just as nasty as poorly prepared meats. It's all about balance, though. If I eat too many of various types of veggies now, it wreaks havoc on my system. I am significantly healthier now than I was then. I have also met some very unhealthy vegans (Both massively overweight and underweight) who weren't paying attention to their bodies. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for diets, it's a matter of exploring what works for each individual. Honestly I think the only universal thing would be if everyone learned how to cook their own food instead of relying on boxes and processed foods. It's surprisingly easy to make most things from scratch and doesn't take that much time once you get proficiency in the basics of cooking. So, sorry to say, but I categorically disagree with the statement that all meat eaters wish they were vegan. [/quote] This is a very good post, and I agree. one of my daughters is a vegan, and I am convinced that she is lacking something because she does have some small issues that I think are related to diet. I once had lunch with a VERY successful medical doctor friend who specializes entirely in preventative care. This subject came up. He said that if you want to know an ideal diet, you should look to how our ancient ancestors ate prior to any farming or domestication. He said that our genetic code comes from hundreds of thousands of years (or more) of evolution. Our bodies evolved to make the most of what we ate. He suggested that while there might be slight variation based on where each persons ancestors came from, most of us evolved to eat mostly plant food, say around 85%, but also around 15% animal food. He also said that fruit was likely only 10-15% of our diet. My ancestors are mostly from northern Europe, so some meat and even some potatoes are ESSENTIAL if I want to have optimal health. If your ancestors are mostly from tropical climates, you might benefit from more plant food. So, optimal health is not based on whether you or your ancestors thought something was yummy or enticing. Our bodies evolved to make optimal use of the mix of foods we ate, regardless of whether we considered those foods to be yummy. KJ |
|
||
| Really? It isn’t obvious? We don’t need doctors of medicine to tell us we are omnivores by nature. Sigh. We are primates with both molars for reducing plant matter and insisors for tearing flesh, and binocular vision for tracking prey. We are Omnivores. Always have been, always will be. This is basic classification of living things. Grade 9 I believe. |
|
||
|
Re: fermented dairy Dairy allergies are absurdly common. I wouldn't consider the saturated fat and sugar content of dairy to be worth the protein and added vitamins. There are much healthier ways to get those nutrients. Now, I'm not saying everyone should or shouldn't give up meat. I chose to because it was the right choice for me personally for both health and ethical reasons. And I do believe that there are somewhat ethical ways to eat meat. But for the most part in our society eating meat affordably means supporting an industry that abuses both animals and humans. And it's not just about animals. There are thousands of indentured servants in Brazil's meat and leather industries and they are primarily black, are often provided one small meal a day and very malnourished, and frequently die from such treatment. That cannot be allowed to continue. Additionally, the cattle industry is the overwhelming majority of the reason the rainforests are being destroyed in Brazil. That hurts the environment, causes the extinction of entire animal species, and has severely damaged several indigenous tribes living in that rainforest. A lot of my friends have gone pescatarian. I don't judge them for that. I did it for a few months but then I felt bad about contributing to overfishing. So these are the reasons I am vegan. I don't require anyone else to share this point of view but if what I say does resonate with anyone else that's awesome. If it doesn't I can live with that too. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: Wrong is not the right word; as it has a lot of seemingly personal hostility behind it, JoeJoe's issue is that he is portraying beliefs as absolutes - which don't hold up to scrutiny. If I had to choose between a fast food burger or a black bean burger... I would choose the bean burger, though if not available Wendy's still makes a decent burger :) [/quote] I think the Beyond Burgers have a taste and texture virtually identical to a regular burger. Even my kids think so and they are very picky eaters. Unfortunately they're relatively expensive and have a nearly identical nutrient profile to a regular burger. High calorie, high fat. But if someone is vegan for strictly ethical reasons then they're a great choice. Personally I only eat them a couple of times a year but it's a treat when I do. |
|
||
|
Sorry for multiple posts, just caught up on the entire thread and see a lot of valid points and nonsense on both sides. Re: "Think like a caveman": What I recall from anthropology class is that the most common theory is that primal peoples were more likely scavenger/gatherers than full-time hunters. Not that they didn't hunt, it was just a huge expenditure of energy when it was easier to just pick stuff up. They also picked up tubers and seeds. And you know what? Sometimes those seeds were toxic! You know what else? They pretty frequently processed and cooked plants. Ever try to chew a wild tuber without cooking it? Do you know that raw potatoes contain a toxin that will harm you if eaten in excess? Do you know how many toxic plant species there are and how common it is for people to die eating misidentified plants? Do you know that many cruciferous vegetables contain goitergens that will exacerbate thyroid problems and that this effect is nullified by cooking them? Why do you think there are morter and pestle sets in stone aged toolkits if not to process plants to make them edible? Do people not eat raw meat? What do you call steak tartar and sashimi? In addition, many plants have nutrients that can only be absorbed by cooking them. I believe that the healthiest diet should include both raw and cooked plants. If you want to prove something you'd best have the science to back it up. I highly recommend this book to learn about how dangerous certain plants can be and to dispel a lot of myths: https://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Plants-Lincolns-Botanical-Atrocities/dp/1565126831/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1544853627&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=wicked+plants Now let me explain why I counter these points: As a social psychology major who specialized in social influence I can tell you that weak arguments only strengthen people's resistance to your point of view. If you want to convince someone to see things your way then you have to lead with strong facts, politics aside. |
|
||
|
My 2 cents: 1) People have different needs 2) People have different wants 3) Different choices have consequences for other humans 4) Different choices have consequences for non-human sentient beings 5) The second biggest lie among humans is "It tastes just like meat! " It's a lot to consider. I think most people go by habit without too much thought or experimentation about it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 14, 2018, critter wrote: Now let me explain why I counter these points: As a social psychology major who specialized in social influence I can tell you that weak arguments only strengthen people's resistance to your point of view. If you want to convince someone to see things your way then you have to lead with strong facts, politics aside. [/quote] You might want to look into "conformation bias" to see why facts don't matter, these days. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 14, 2018, 1KJ wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, WitchDocChris wrote: I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective in that I was vegan for several years when I was in my early twenties. I enjoy the taste of meat - when cooked properly. Which is the actual problem. Most people don't seem to know how to cook, and thus must cover mediocre cooking skills with too many seasonings and sauces. A good cut of beef, cooked in a bit of butter with a dash of salt is delicious. When I cook veggies for myself I tend to just heat them up a bit and eat them, as I do enjoy their natural flavors. Poorly prepared veggies are just as nasty as poorly prepared meats. It's all about balance, though. If I eat too many of various types of veggies now, it wreaks havoc on my system. I am significantly healthier now than I was then. I have also met some very unhealthy vegans (Both massively overweight and underweight) who weren't paying attention to their bodies. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for diets, it's a matter of exploring what works for each individual. Honestly I think the only universal thing would be if everyone learned how to cook their own food instead of relying on boxes and processed foods. It's surprisingly easy to make most things from scratch and doesn't take that much time once you get proficiency in the basics of cooking. So, sorry to say, but I categorically disagree with the statement that all meat eaters wish they were vegan. [/quote] This is a very good post, and I agree. one of my daughters is a vegan, and I am convinced that she is lacking something because she does have some small issues that I think are related to diet. I once had lunch with a VERY successful medical doctor friend who specializes entirely in preventative care. This subject came up. He said that if you want to know an ideal diet, you should look to how our ancient ancestors ate prior to any farming or domestication. He said that our genetic code comes from hundreds of thousands of years (or more) of evolution. Our bodies evolved to make the most of what we ate. He suggested that while there might be slight variation based on where each persons ancestors came from, most of us evolved to eat mostly plant food, say around 85%, but also around 15% animal food. He also said that fruit was likely only 10-15% of our diet. My ancestors are mostly from northern Europe, so some meat and even some potatoes are ESSENTIAL if I want to have optimal health. If your ancestors are mostly from tropical climates, you might benefit from more plant food. So, optimal health is not based on whether you or your ancestors thought something was yummy or enticing. Our bodies evolved to make optimal use of the mix of foods we ate, regardless of whether we considered those foods to be yummy. KJ [/quote] This is interesting. For optimal health, one should eat the diet one’s ancestors evolved to subsist on. Very interesting. |
|
||
|
[quote]For optimal health, one should eat the diet one’s ancestors evolved to subsist on. [/quote] That's a good starting point, but that only points you in the direction of the average. When you get down to the individual level, there are differences, and it's worth learning about what one's own particular needs and wants are. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 14, 2018, critter wrote: So these are the reasons I am vegan. I don't require anyone else to share this point of view but if what I say does resonate with anyone else that's awesome. If it doesn't I can live with that too. [/quote] What a wonderful position to take. Lots to be learned here from this attitude about any subject you care to name. Bravo sir. |
|
||
|
Strange Thought... if everyone became vegetarian, what would we do with all the livestock? Let them roam? Based upon 2011 numbers: 30,086,000 beef cows and 9,085,000 dairy cows 9 billion "broiler" (baby) chickens, both males and females, are raised. 66 million Pigs. |
|
||
|
I've got a few things to add: "30,086,000 beef cows and 9,085,000 dairy cows 9 billion "broiler" (baby) chickens, both males and females, are raised. 66 million Pigs." And how many humans? The catch in all this: plants are sentient, too. So, in my opinion, the main lesson for humans is in realizing and accepting we all get by with a little help from our friends. Peace. Would anyone like to buy me a :spoon: :question: https://ko-fi.com/E1E0JKOK TIA :giving: :bwink: |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 15, 2018, magicalaurie wrote: And how many humans? [/quote] 325.7 million (2017) |
|
||
|
"7.7 Billion 7.7 Billion (2018) The current world population is 7.7 billion as of December 2018 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers." https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-CA&authuser=0&rlz=1C2CHWA_enCA631CA631&biw=1517&bih=695&ei=DnUVXJ_mCOKN_QaY0aBI&q=human+population+2018&oq=human+population+2018&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71l8.0.0..8742...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.M1rahiMaGIg 2014 livestock maps: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/20/5825826/these-maps-show-where-all-the-worlds-cattle-chickens-and-pigs-live |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 15, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote: You might want to look into [i]"conformation bias"[/i] to see why facts don't matter, these days. [/quote]Perhaps accidental, but that's a frightening phrase. One could also raise an argument about eating meat based upon [url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste]water costs[/url]. Farmers versus ranchers has been a factor in our history. * comic closing line: I'm not going to get into whether or not the grass likes to be mowed. |
|
||
| My data was based upon the U.S. only. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 15, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote: [quote]On Dec 14, 2018, critter wrote: Now let me explain why I counter these points: As a social psychology major who specialized in social influence I can tell you that weak arguments only strengthen people's resistance to your point of view. If you want to convince someone to see things your way then you have to lead with strong facts, politics aside. [/quote] You might want to look into "conformation bias" to see why facts don't matter, these days. [/quote] But they do. Confirmation bias is how people [i]interpret[/i] somewhat ambiguous information. Like how a Klansman and a decent human being will each say that a meme or film supports their own divergent worldview. So confirmation bias in many ways supports my point, if the message is not clear then it strengthens the person's intrinsic beliefs. And the idea of confirmation bias predates Cialdini's work. |
|
||
|
Thanks for clarifying. I gathered that, after seeing your human population number. I was talking globally and put up global numbers for information, because you had said, emphasis my own: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: if [i]everyone[/i] became vegetarian, what would we do with [i]all[/i] the livestock? [/quote] :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 15, 2018, critter wrote: Confirmation bias is how people [i]interpret[/i] somewhat ambiguous information.[/quote] Not exactly. Paul Simon sums it up perfectly here: [youtube]l3LFML_pxlY[/youtube] Have a listen at 0:21 - 0:25. (You can listen to the rest of the song if you want to. And you might as well; it's a great song.) |
|
||
|
[quote] The catch in all this: plants are sentient, too [/quote] Picking a tomato does not kill the tomato plant, nor does eating an orange require an orange tree to be slaughtered. Part of becoming vegan is the realization that something does not have to die for you to live. [quote] if [i]everyone[/i] became vegetarian, what would we do with [i]all[/i] the livestock? [/quote] Most of it would never exist in nature, do you know what a "rape rack" is?? Cows only produce milk when they are pregnant so they are tied to rape racks and forcefully impregnated. [youtube]6rlzj7U5z00[/youtube] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
So... you're saying we should turn all the livestock into sex slaves? I'm so confused right now... |
|
||
| Oh wait for it. If you think you're confused now, that is nothing compared to what you will be once he gets going. |
|
||
| Ultimately everybody wants to eat ambrosia. Every rock wants to be a plant, every plant wants to be an animal, every animal wants to be human, every human wants to be a god and lesser gods want to be greater gods and so on ad infinitum. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 15, 2018, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, critter wrote: Confirmation bias is how people [i]interpret[/i] somewhat ambiguous information.[/quote] Not exactly. Paul Simon sums it up perfectly here: [youtube]l3LFML_pxlY[/youtube] Have a listen at 0:21 - 0:25. (You can listen to the rest of the song if you want to. And you might as well; it's a great song.) [/quote] Pretty close to exactly though. The definition is all about interpretation. How I've described it is simplified but accurate. In sticking to the part of the definition most germaine to this conversation I have demonstrated another part of the definition, which is best described as "cherry-picking." So you really can reduce that aspect of confirmation bias in others by presenting your information in a complete and accurate fashion, as I just didn't. Perhaps of equal or greater importance is attempting to be aware of our own biases. Such as knowing that I am biased toward veganism because I are one. To this end we can then try to find a way to account for this in our interpretations. And in a totally non-scientific or pedantic way, my opinion on doing this in our daily lives is just to learn to be interested in and curious about people. All kinds of people. It really makes life more fun, in my experience. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Picking a tomato does not kill the tomato plant, nor does eating an orange require an orange tree to be slaughtered.[/quote] This is a relevant point and I appreciate it, JoeJoe. Thank you. :) |
|
||
| Eating the baby does not kill the mother. |
|
||
|
I was trying to add something, but, you see... I'll put it here, then. The fruit/vegetable itself is taken, though. It would be anyway by others and only remain edible for so long, I suppose. I thought about salmon that way for a little while- the way grizzlies take them as they're nearing the end of their days here. I was wondering if the red salmon advertised for human consumption is at a similar life stage, but I've been told otherwise. [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, Mike Gainor wrote: So... you're saying we should turn all the livestock into sex slaves? I'm so confused right now... [/quote] No, he's saying the reason there are so many livestock animals, is that instead of allowing them to reproduce naturally, currently, they are artificially inseminated to rapidly increase production, and cows are maintained in a pregnant state so producers can sell their milk. Not confusing if you know a little about lactation. |
|
||
| A few people here have used the term "cooking meat properly" which I reject. Meat is cooked properly if it's done the way you like it. For example, I like well roasted lamb (those crispy bits are bliss) and yet I prefer medium rare fillet or sirloin steak. I also like my steak slow cooked in a mushroom and mustard sauce, sometimes brushed with olive oil and black pepper prior to frying, sometimes fried in truffle oil. Which of those cooking methods are "proper"?, answer - all of them. |
|
||
| What I got from your post art85y, was HUNGRY. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 29, 2018, rockwall wrote: Do you think she really wishes she was a Vegan? [youtube]PIAgFDu2-oc[/youtube] [/quote] No veg, no potatoes, no wine, this is no way to do justice to steak. Also, never had rib-eye and probably never will after seeing this "its even a challenge to cut it" .......no thank you. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, critter wrote: Confirmation bias is how people [i]interpret[/i] somewhat ambiguous information.[/quote] Not exactly. Paul Simon sums it up perfectly here: [youtube]l3LFML_pxlY[/youtube] Have a listen at 0:21 - 0:25. (You can listen to the rest of the song if you want to. And you might as well; it's a great song.) [/quote] Pretty close to exactly though. The definition is all about interpretation.[/quote] No, it isn't. Confirmation bias is all about concrete information that cannot be misinterpreted. The key isn't in interpretation, it's in what information you accept and what information you discard. A person suffering from confirmation bias will accept clear, compelling, concrete information that supports his position and discard (i.e., ignore) clear, compelling, concrete information that undermines his position, often by trying to discredit the source. [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: In sticking to the part of the definition most germaine to this conversation I have demonstrated another part of the definition, which is best described as "cherry-picking." So you really can reduce that aspect of confirmation bias in others by presenting your information in a complete and accurate fashion, as I just didn't.[/quote] Cherry-picking it is. And, just to let Señor Fabuloso that I don't pick on only him, it's [i]germane[/i]. [b][i]Germaine[/i][/b] is an Australian author of some . . . shall we say . . . notoriety. ;) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Dec 15, 2018, critter wrote: Confirmation bias is how people [i]interpret[/i] somewhat ambiguous information.[/quote] Not exactly. Paul Simon sums it up perfectly here: [youtube]l3LFML_pxlY[/youtube] Have a listen at 0:21 - 0:25. (You can listen to the rest of the song if you want to. And you might as well; it's a great song.) [/quote] Pretty close to exactly though. The definition is all about interpretation.[/quote] No, it isn't. Confirmation bias is all about concrete information that cannot be misinterpreted. The key isn't in interpretation, it's in what information you accept and what information you discard. A person suffering from confirmation bias will accept clear, compelling, concrete information that supports his position and discard (i.e., ignore) clear, compelling, concrete information that undermines his position, often by trying to discredit the source. [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: In sticking to the part of the definition most germaine to this conversation I have demonstrated another part of the definition, which is best described as "cherry-picking." So you really can reduce that aspect of confirmation bias in others by presenting your information in a complete and accurate fashion, as I just didn't.[/quote] Cherry-picking it is. And, just to let Señor Fabuloso that I don't pick on only him, it's [i]germane[/i]. [b][i]Germaine[/i][/b] is an Australian author of some . . . shall we say . . . notoriety. ;) [/quote] [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: Perhaps of equal or greater importance is attempting to be aware of our own biases. Such as knowing that I am biased toward veganism because I are one. To this end we can then try to find a way to account for this in our interpretations.[/quote] Amen! |
|
||
|
Darned misspellings. Can't catch 'em all. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm "Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t *perceive* circumstances objectively." Dictionary.com: "confirmation bias [kon-fer-mey-shuhn bahy-uhs] Word Origin noun Psychology.bias that results from the tendency toprocess and analyze information in such away that it supports one’s preexisting odeas and convictions." Oxford dictionary: "The tendency to *interpret* new information as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." This is getting pretty off-topic with the semantics. Not that it's not super fun. |
|
||
|
Where you moved the goalposts is that I referenced the "weak evidence effect" and then someone else brought up "confirmation bias." I spoke of how the two can both be true and then you decided we were only talking about confirmation bias. Both are valid theories so it's not a stretch to extrapolate a connection between the two. And if you need more support for this then read up on the "synergistic effect." Let me know if this isn't fun. It's just the internet so it should be fun. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: Darned misspellings. Can't catch 'em all. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm "Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t *perceive* circumstances objectively."[/quote] This is true, but note that it doesn't say that it's a matter of interpretation. I come across confirmation bias frequently in behavioral finance, which I teach. I've never seen anyone describe it as interpreting ambiguous data in one's favor. It's always cherry-picking. [quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: Dictionary.com: "confirmation bias [kon-fer-mey-shuhn bahy-uhs] Word Origin noun Psychology.bias that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such away that it supports one’s preexisting odeas and convictions." Oxford dictionary: "The tendency to *interpret* new information as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." This is getting pretty off-topic with the semantics. Not that it's not super fun.[/quote] It's interesting how dictionary definitions of words often don't correspond to how they're most commonly used. But it is super fun, I agree. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: Where you moved the goalposts is that I referenced the "weak evidence effect" and then someone else brought up "confirmation bias." I spoke of how the two can both be true and then you decided we were only talking about confirmation bias. Both are valid theories so it's not a stretch to extrapolate a connection between the two. And if you need more support for this then read up on the "synergistic effect." Let me know if this isn't fun. It's just the internet so it should be fun.[/quote] I didn't move any goalposts, and I didn't decide that we were talking only about confirmation bias. [b][i]I[/i][/b] was talking only about confirmation bias because your description of it was incorrect.; I had no argument against your reference to the weak evidence effect. Nor do I have any argument against a connection between the two. On the topic of weak evidence, the morning session of the Level III Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) exam will always have a number of questions in which the candidate has to formulate a conclusion, then give a specified number of justifications for that conclusion. When teaching the subject matter, I always suggest that they list (mentally, or on scratch paper) all of the justifications, then decide which are the best and write those in the exam booklet. (Note that if they're asked to justify a conclusion with, say, two reasons, the graders are instructed to read only the first two reasons listed; they literally cross off any reasons beyond the number requested.) |
|
||
|
Except that my description wasn't incorrect. Feel free to check those definitions again. I don't expect people to accept my definitions just because I spent six years in school for this and substantially more applying it but if this is just going to be me giving you a definition with a reference to where it came from and you saying "those words don't mean what the Oxford dictionary says they mean" then it's going to get tedious and I'll happily concede to spare myself that ordeal. But if you are actually just doing a bit to demonstrate that facts really don't matter by demonstrating said principle... then... well-played. |
|
||
|
One more, this one not from a dictionary: "...the tendency to process information by looking for, or [i]interpreting,[/i] information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs." Scott Plous: The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. Note that reference to interpretation. It seems to be a recurring theme. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, critter wrote: Except that my description wasn't incorrect. Feel free to check those definitions again. I don't expect people to accept my definitions just because I spent six years in school for this and substantially more applying it but if this is just going to be me giving you a definition with a reference to where it came from and you saying "those words don't mean what the Oxford dictionary says they mean" then it's going to get tedious and I'll happily concede to spare myself that ordeal. But if you are actually just doing a bit to demonstrate that facts really don't matter by demonstrating said principle... then... well-played.[/quote] Of course, I never wrote any of the things you suggest, but feel free to mischaracterize what I did write. To be clear, what I wrote is that I've been teaching behavioral finance for a number of years, that confirmation bias arises in behavioral finance, and that I've never encountered anyone who said that confirmation bias involved interpreting ambiguous information in a manner that supports one's position, that it's always been presented as cherry-picking. If it is commonly used to mean what you say, then that's news to me. Please not that that last sentence is in no way intended to suggest that I think that it's wrong. It's intended to suggest that it's news to me. And we can all learn something new. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 16, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote: What I got from your post art85y, was HUNGRY. [/quote] Senor, I particularly recommend the truffle oil, :-) |
|
||
| Yeah, I really dislike squeaky truffles! |
|
||
|
"The dollar value of a pregnancy" https://www.dairyherd.com/article/dollar-value-pregnancy [YouTube]R6fYyxs_lDE[/youtube] |
|
||
|
Although confirmation bias may be in play with ambiguous information, that doesn't discount that the primary meaning of the term deals with information that would not otherwise be considered ambiguous--and I HATE agreeing with Bill! Confirmation bias is the tendency to [b]search for, interpret, favor, and recall[/b] information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs. People display this bias when they [b]gather or remember[/b] information selectively. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and is a type of apophenia, which is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. In other words, you're both right to an extent but the full meaning of the term is a little broader than either definition. This doesn't have any effect on the discussion at hand, though, but thought it might be useful for some. |
|
||
|
Getting back to the point, though, I'm a firm believer in moderation. In any area of life, whether it be diet, politics, or really any life choices, proponents of more extreme behavior need to have increasingly compelling arguments in favor of deviating from those moderate choices. Given that both vegan and non-vegan diets can result in dietary deficiencies, I choose the diet that gives me the greatest flexibility in countering any imbalance. More important than vegan vs. non vegan, is the idea that over-processed, mass marketed foods are a far greater danger than a piece of chicken. It's been brought up in this thread but to my way of thinking is the most important element for dietary health. And let's not focus so much on staying alive that we forget how to live! (READ: Cheeseburgers taste good!) |
|
||
| It is something to do with priests refusing to baptize fornicators. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Dec 21, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote: . . . I HATE agreeing with Bill![/quote] Now you're making me blush. ;) |
|
||
|
To the op. I just wanted to correct a silly thing you said early on. People don't have to put ketchup on meat to be able to eat it. Look at how steak is eaten. I'm a chef and let me tell you, the more raw the better and not many folk use seasoning either, not on the rare steak. I don't care for it myself, my wife is vegetarian and I'm on a feeding tube. I don't have the luxury of defining what is and what isn't acceptable to eat. Or eating it!(I did used to eat meat though, shoot me!) I certainly don't try to tell others what they ought to eat and neither does my wife. It would be arrogant of me. ;) You're proposition is so obviously wrong it is like a very long joke! You didn't prove anything. Thanks for the read though. Fascinating. I'm not being sarcastic there, I mean that. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Jan 4, 2019, HeronsHorse wrote: Look at how steak is eaten. [/quote] Yeah, I did ... steak without ketsuo is cooked on fire so it will taste like smoke which is a plant-based seasoning ... hickory, maple, mesquite, etc etc ... before magic I was a chef too. You are not going to tell me chefs don't use smoke flavors to season steaks, or at the very least "blackened". [quote] You're proposition is so obviously wrong it is like a very long joke! You didn't prove anything. [/quote] And you didn't eat my vegan chicken nuggets either, so I wouldn't have expected to have "proven" anything to you ... the proof is in the flavor. People don't eat food because they want to kill animals - they eat food because it tastes good. They will eat food they know is unhealthy and will kill them as long as they like the way it tastes, sad but true. If plant-based foods taste better than animal-based foods, people will prefer to eat them ... period. It has nothing to do with your own personal belief systems. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Ok Mr know-everything. I'm wasting my time here so I'll simply vanish! Circular dogmatic arguments are not my style. Enjoy yours though. |
|
||
|
Well it is common sense - if people will spend billions on unhealthy food like McDonalds just because it "tastes good" imagine what they would spend on healthy food that tastes better. Twenty years ago when I moved to this town as a vegetarian there was not a single plant-based meat available anywhere, now there are four sections of frozen vegan-meats at Kruger. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Seems to me, vegans want the taste of meat so badly, they’re willing to put up with fake meat that almost satisfies their desires! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Jan 4, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Seems to me, vegans want the taste of meat so badly, they’re willing to put up with fake meat that almost satisfies their desires! [/quote] No ... we don't make our vegetables taste like your meat, you make your meat taste like our vegetables. Hickory smoke, maple, tomatoes, onion, lettuce, pickles, olives, peppers ... meat eaters want the taste of vegetables more than vegans want the taste of flesh. Everything you season your meat with is a vegetable; no vegan is seasoning their vegetables with dead flesh. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Yet, you’re the ones making plant based “chicken nuggets,” and announcing that you’ve found four different plant based “meat substitutes!” We may be using plants to “augment” the flavor of meats, but you’re using plants to try and find a substitute for what you really want... a big, juicy, bacon cheeseburger! :hamburger: |
|
||
|
No, I don't want a piece of dead animal that will clog my artiries and make me sick. It is not even a debate about animals-vs-plants: it is about growth hormones, steroids, antibiotics ... if you knew what they fed the cow that you are eating, you wouldn't want it. But hey ... as long as they can make that dead animal "taste good", people will eat it no matter what ... they will eat it even if it makes them fat and sick, some people will still defend their diet even on their death bed. Sad but true. Solution to the problem is simple: demonstrate to people that plant-based food can taste better than animal-based food. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Joe Joe wrote: "If plant-based foods taste better than animal-based foods, people will prefer to eat them ... period." Incorrect. |
|
||
| I guess you were a doctor and a nutritionist also before magic so you can speak with such authority on what is healthy and what is not? |
|
||
| The real question here is if you use a hickory stick to beat a dead horse will it taste any better? |
|
||
| The stick will taste much better. |
|
||
| Weed Eaters want to be carnivorous. |
|
||
|
No. I look at a dead cow being eaten by carnivores and think, that must taste great. Sushi and sashimi. Same thing when I see fish eaten by other fish. |
|
||
| The fish will taste much better. |
|
||
|
How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett No smoke in sight! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett No smoke in sight![/quote] That Mettigel is cute! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 18, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett No smoke in sight![/quote] That Mettigel is cute! [/quote] Geschmacksache, I suppose. Never saw a Mettigel before. But what I did see once--and I described it once here at the Café several years ago--is a group of guys having breakfast together in a school canteen, and they had a plate of bread rolls, a plate of sliced onions, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and a plate with about two kilos (ca. five lbs) of raw ground pork. I said "Guten Apetit" to the guys and inquired about their feast. They called it a "Feuerwehr Frühstück" (fireman's breakfast), whatever that meant (or means). |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 19, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: "Feuerwehr Frühstück" [/quote] That's my safety word. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett? [/quote] [quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett It is normally served with salt and black pepper, and sometimes with garlic, caraway or chopped onion, and eaten raw, usually on a bread roll. [/quote] Pepper ... a plant. Garlic ... plant. Caraway ... plant. Chopped onion ... plant. Bread roll ... Wheat, another plant. As stated in the OP, "everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant so you won't want to vomit when you eat it. The wikipedia article also states it is "It is also sold in the form of mettwurst, a spicy, raw sausage, often smoked", so yes ... there very much is indeed smoke in sight. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| "season your meat" I'm not touching that one ;) |
|
||
|
I have eaten steak, hamburgers and hot dogs with nothing on them. Ditto pork chops. Plants are used to enhance the meat, not cover it up. We're not the ones coming up with "fake meat," telling everyone; "You can't tell the difference!" Believe me, eating a soy burger DID make me want to throw up. |
|
||
|
The World's Second Biggest Lie: It tastes just like meat. (I know this is probably the 20th time I've posted that joke, but I'm going to keep doing it until somebody laughs.) |
|
||
| I saw you as having WAAAAAAY more self esteem than that landmark but here you go :rotf: |
|
||
| Free at last, free at last... |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 27, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: I have eaten steak, hamburgers and hot dogs with nothing on them. Ditto pork chops. Plants are used to enhance the meat, not cover it up. We're not the ones coming up with "fake meat," telling everyone; "You can't tell the difference!" Believe me, eating a soy burger DID make me want to throw up. [/quote] Yes sir we agree. |
|
||
|
There are dozens of different fake meats, to sample one and label them all is nonsense. Many of them are wheat based so that is like saying because you don't like pasta you don't want to eat donuts either. Regardless, man did not eat flesh until after he learned how to build fire; until man learned how to build fire man ate nuts and berries. Man's natural instinct is a vegan diet, eating flesh is learned behavior. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| ... or man ate raw meat. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Regardless, man did not eat flesh until after he learned how to build fire; until man learned how to build fire man ate nuts and berries. Man's natural instinct is a vegan diet, eating flesh is learned behavior.[/quote] And you know this . . . how? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 26, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett? [/quote] [quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett It is normally served with salt and black pepper, and sometimes with garlic, caraway or chopped onion, and eaten raw, usually on a bread roll. [/quote] Pepper ... a plant. Garlic ... plant. Caraway ... plant. Chopped onion ... plant. Bread roll ... Wheat, another plant. As stated in the OP, "everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant so you won't want to vomit when you eat it. The wikipedia article also states it is "It is also sold in the form of mettwurst, a spicy, raw sausage, often smoked", so yes ... there very much is indeed smoke in sight. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Quite simply the most ludicrous statement I've ever read in my life. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, magicfish wrote: [quote]On Feb 26, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett?[/quote] [quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett It is normally served with salt and black pepper, and sometimes with garlic, caraway or chopped onion, and eaten raw, usually on a bread roll.[/quote] Pepper ... a plant. Garlic ... plant. Caraway ... plant. Chopped onion ... plant. Bread roll ... Wheat, another plant. As stated in the OP, "everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant so you won't want to vomit when you eat it. The wikipedia article also states it is "It is also sold in the form of mettwurst, a spicy, raw sausage, often smoked", so yes ... there very much is indeed smoke in sight. :) -JoeJoe[/quote] Quite simply the most ludicrous statement I've ever read in my life.[/quote] If that's true, all I can say is that you must not get out much. |
|
||
| It might not even be the most luxurious statement JoeJoe has ever made. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: It might not even be the most [i]luxurious[/i] statement JoeJoe has ever made. [/quote] [b][i]Luxurious[/i][/b]? |
|
||
|
Auto corect (That one was intended.) attacks again. No red lines under the word it must be spelled in the right way? Yep right way, wrong word! Ludicrous was the intended word as opposed to the correctly spelled luxurious. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Feb 28, 2019, magicfish wrote: [quote]On Feb 26, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Feb 18, 2019, stoneunhinged wrote: How does Joe Joe explain the popularity of Mett?[/quote] [quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett It is normally served with salt and black pepper, and sometimes with garlic, caraway or chopped onion, and eaten raw, usually on a bread roll.[/quote] Pepper ... a plant. Garlic ... plant. Caraway ... plant. Chopped onion ... plant. Bread roll ... Wheat, another plant. As stated in the OP, "everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant so you won't want to vomit when you eat it. The wikipedia article also states it is "It is also sold in the form of mettwurst, a spicy, raw sausage, often smoked", so yes ... there very much is indeed smoke in sight. :) -JoeJoe[/quote] Quite simply the most ludicrous statement I've ever read in my life.[/quote] If that's true, all I can say is that you must not get out much. [/quote] I do get out. A lot. That's how ludicrous it is. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Regardless, man did not eat flesh until after he learned how to build fire; until man learned how to build fire man ate nuts and berries. Man's natural instinct is a vegan diet, eating flesh is learned behavior.[/quote] Two simple Google searches put human's first control of fire at about 1 million years ago (give or take a couple of weeks), and human's first consumption of meat at about 2.6 million years ago. In short, you statement appears to be garbage. As the Geico cavemen have said repeatedly: do some research. |
|
||
|
Give or take a couple of weeks made me laugh out loud more than some comics I've seen recently. Well played. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 28, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: There are dozens of different fake meats, to sample one and label them all is nonsense. Many of them are wheat based so that is like saying because you don't like pasta you don't want to eat donuts either. Regardless, man did not eat flesh until after he learned how to build fire; until man learned how to build fire man ate nuts and berries. Man's natural instinct is a vegan diet, eating flesh is learned behavior. -JoeJoe [/quote] However many "fake meats" there are is immaterial. The fact is, you make fake meat. |
|
||
| Thanks, Danny. |
|
||
|
"Regardless, man did not eat flesh until after he learned how to build fire; until man learned how to build fire man ate nuts and berries. Man's natural instinct is a vegan diet, eating flesh is learned behavior." Ok. You guys win. I don't get out much. My lord Joe joe read a book. We ate meat waaaaay before fire. No spices. No garlic. No agriculture. And we loved it. You have it backwards. We don't try to make meat taste like veg. You constantly try to make veg taste like meat. Do you know how far from truth your views are? Do you actually care? |
|
||
|
[quote]We ate meat waaaaay before fire. No spices. No garlic. No agriculture. [/quote] Fortunately, Bromo-Seltzer had been discovered the week before. |
|
||
|
To be fair... I'm sure those animals ran through tall grass and shrubbery (which may have had berries), and were dragged back through others such flora after the kill on the way back to camp. So technically it was seasoned by plants :) Heck, I bet there were some fungi there too! |
|
||
| I enjoy the way JoeJoe just thinks something and calls it "common sense" and just asserts it is true. Then he uses his assumptions, to prove his assertions are true. HILARIOUS. Then follows it with "duh" as if anyone who does research is an idiot. |
|
||
|
It really is mind boggling. He says books are only good for making fire, then makes ludicrous assertions and argues they are based on fact. Read the books first Joe Joe. Then burn them. |
|
||
|
Man could not hunt, kill, clean, and cook a deer until AFTER he "learns" how to fashion tools such as a blade and fire; the first generations of humans ate nuts, berries, insects, and small creatures before learning to eat mammals. Ya'all are confusing acquired knowledge with instinctual behavior. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| You are confusing your assumptions and beliefs with facts. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Man could not hunt, kill, clean, and cook a deer until AFTER he "learns" how to fashion tools such as a blade and fire; the first generations of humans ate nuts, berries, insects, and small creatures before learning to eat mammals. Ya'all are confusing acquired knowledge with instinctual behavior.[/quote] And you're assuming that man had to cook a deer before eating it. Face it, JoeJoe: you're wrong here. Man was eating meat about 1½ million years before he learned how to cook it. |
|
||
| Bill to be fair JoeJoe had no idea you would be using facts and proof in this discussion. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Man could not hunt, kill, clean, and cook a deer until AFTER he "learns" how to fashion tools such as a blade and fire; the first generations of humans ate nuts, berries, insects, and small creatures before learning to eat mammals. Ya'all are confusing acquired knowledge with instinctual behavior. -JoeJoe [/quote] Yes. Yes they could. And they did. |
|
||
| Geeeeeesh... you guy with your so called facts; which can't possibly be true to begin with, since the world is only 3000 years old.... and flat. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Bill to be fair JoeJoe had no idea you would be using facts and proof in this discussion.[/quote] Good point, Danny. I need to remind myself to stop doing that. Nasty habit. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: Geeeeeesh... you guy with your so called facts; which can't possibly be true to begin with, since the world is only 3000 years old.... [b][i]and flat[/i][/b].[/quote] Evidently the only exception being my back yard, where the silly corgi digs. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, S2000magician wrote: And you're assuming that man had to cook a deer before eating it. [/quote] He needed to figured out how to make a knife before he could even think about eating the thing - duh!! He can't run as fast, his fingers can't rip into the deer's leather hide, nor can his teeth get to the flesh until AFTER he "learns" how to make tools - so simple. Man could not have possibly eaten flesh before he ate plants, this is pure basic common sense - just think it through, sheesh. [[rolling eyes]] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, S2000magician wrote: And you're assuming that man had to cook a deer before eating it.[/quote] He needed to figured out how to make a knife before he could even think about eating the thing - duh!![/quote] Yes, JoeJoe: duh! What does that have to do with cooking venison? (Hint: nothing.) [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: He can't run as fast, his fingers can't rip into the deer's leather hide, nor can his teeth get to the flesh until AFTER he "learns" how to make tools - so simple.[/quote] Nobody's disputing that. What does it have to do with cooking venison? (Hint: nothing.) [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Man could not have possibly eaten flesh before he ate plants, this is pure basic common sense - just think it through, sheesh. [[rolling eyes]][/quote] Nobody suggested that Man ate meat [b][i]before[/i][/b] eating plants. That's stupid. What does that have to do with cooking venison? (Hint: nothing. Just think it through. Sheesh!) |
|
||
|
YES we have our DUH! From the "World's Foremost Authority"!! Oh I miss that bit. Brilliant. Saying duh when actually being totally wrong is HILARIOUS!!!!!! Thank you for being so predictable. Why would he have to have a knife to eat a deer? I don't see many mountain lions packing blades. Eating rotting flesh requires no knife. BUT here JoeJoe try reading and learning instead of pontificating and bloviating. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/evolving-to-eat-mush-how-meat-changed-our-bodies/ "Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago." These morons at National Geographic seem to agree with Bill. But JoeJoe has declared "duh" so I guess he must be right huh? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: These morons at National Geographic seem to agree with Bill.[/quote] In their defense, I once paid for a subscription, so they feel that they have to pander to me. I believe that "beholdin'" is [i]le mot juste[/i]. |
|
||
|
Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass. I mean those 2 blonde, blue eyed people who were just evicted from a garden (where there were fruit a plenty) wouldn't even want to eat one of their former pets. Think before you post! ;p |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass. I mean those 2 blonde, blue eyed people who were just evicted from a garden (where there were fruit a plenty) wouldn't even want to eat one of their former pets. Think before you post! ;p [/quote] Yea why religion bash so much? Is it needed? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: These morons at National Geographic seem to agree with Bill.[/quote] In their defense, I once paid for a subscription, so they feel that they have to pander to me. I believe that "beholdin'" is [i]le mot juste[/i]. [/quote] Great. 90 minutes till show time and have to look that up or it will drive me nuts the whole show. I agree it is THE word. But is it with an "i" or an "e"? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Yea why religion bash so much? Is it needed? [/quote] Withdrawn. :) |
|
||
|
Joe Joe wrote: "He needed to figured out how to make a knife before he could even think about eating the thing - duh!!" No, Joe Joe. No knife required. |
|
||
|
Joe Joe wrote: "He can't run as fast, his fingers can't rip into the deer's leather hide, nor can his teeth get to the flesh until AFTER he "learns" how to make tools - so simple." 1. No need to run as fast. 2. No need to make tools. Simple indeed. |
|
||
|
"Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass." Yes they do. |
|
||
| I'm pretty certain our jaws are not as they once were. I think there is a word for it though it slips my mind. |
|
||
| The "duh" of this thread seems more about how somebody with very little knowledge about the evolution of man and his eating habits, has commanded 11 pages worth of posts? Now that's magic :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Feb 26, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: The wikipedia article also states it is "It is also sold in the form of mettwurst, a spicy, raw sausage, often smoked", so yes ... there very much is indeed smoke in sight. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Mettwurst is the sausage variation, sometimes smoked. Mett itself is simple raw ground pork. They are different things. But I must give you credit for reading the article. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, magicfish wrote: "Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass." Yes they do. [/quote] I was being intentionally fallacious. Meaning that we have not always looked this way and once had powerful mandibles. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 12, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, magicfish wrote: "Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass." Yes they do. [/quote] I was being intentionally fallacious. Meaning that we have not always looked this way and once had powerful mandibles. [/quote] Yes this was the point I was making. |
|
||
| I know, we're on the same page... I just like taking the scenic route. |
|
||
| I can put lettuce and tomatoes on my hamburger and it will taste better. I can eat the hamburger without lettuce or tomatoes and it will taste fine. I am never going to put lettuce and tomatoes on a hamburger bun and eat them alone. |
|
||
| The good thing about fast food is that it helps reduce the population. |
|
||
|
I'm a bit late, but earlier it was being argued that mammals are animals because they have fur, while humans don't. However, the naked mole-rat is not only completely hairless, but also cold blooded. And while I am at it, the Opah fish is warm blooded, and the Bagheera Kiplingi spider is mostly herbivorous, and the platypus and echidna are mammals, but both lay eggs. That said, while a lot of animals fall out of how we define them, I think it's safe to say they are all animals. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 13, 2019, Blaze Magic wrote: That said, while a lot of animals fall out of how we define them, I think it's safe to say they are all animals.[/quote] It's indisputable that a lot of animals are animals. |
|
||
| I previously thought so, until I read the earlier pages of the thread :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 13, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 13, 2019, Blaze Magic wrote: That said, while a lot of animals fall out of how we define them, I think it's safe to say they are all animals.[/quote] It's indisputable that a lot of animals are animals. [/quote] FINALLY. Something I didn't have to look up |
|
||
| I like that those furry animals don't have any skin underneath... |
|
||
| Why would you need skin when you have fur? Skin is for animals without any fur. Fur is a perfectly good way to hold animals together lol. |
|
||
| Fur real. ;) |
|
||
|
I've read through all 12 pages of posts and would like to add 3 things. 1. JoeJoe - thank you very much for feeding the homeless. I also feed hundreds throughout the year with my church, and many others by myself, and they always appreciate it. The thought of dumpster-diving is unthinkable for most that have homes. 2. I was a lact-ovo vegetarian for more than 2 decades. I was never so sickly or weak. Once I started back to eating meat again, both my health and strength were restored. I can only speak for myself from my own experience. 3. I know of no hospital in North America that does not serve meat and/or fish with vegetables for inpatients recovering from surgery unless a special meal is requested. I’m relying on the expertise of physicians and dietitian for these default meals. |
|
||
| Wow, facts. What a concept! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Why would he have to have a knife to eat a deer? I don't see many mountain lions packing blades.[/quote] Mountain lions have sharp pointy teeth designed to puncture flesh, humans do no have such teeth. [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, magicfish wrote: "Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass." Yes they do. [/quote] No they do not, your teeth can barely break human skin yet alone the leather hide of a deer. If it wasn't so sad, I would be amused that you think you can. It is a lie guys ... you have been lied to and you believe the lie. https://www.peta.org/features/are-humans-supposed-to-eat-meat/ -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Animals with eyes in the front of their head, like humans and lions and so on are hunters as a rule. https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/owl |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Why would he have to have a knife to eat a deer? I don't see many mountain lions packing blades.[/quote] Mountain lions have sharp pointy teeth designed to puncture flesh, humans do no have such teeth. [quote]On Mar 11, 2019, magicfish wrote: "Hey! Human jaws do not have the capability of tearing apart a carcass." Yes they do. [/quote] No they do not, your teeth can barely break human skin yet alone the leather hide of a deer. If it wasn't so sad, I would be amused that you think you can. It is a lie guys ... you have been lied to and you believe the lie. https://www.peta.org/features/are-humans-supposed-to-eat-meat/ -JoeJoe [/quote] PETA does not exactly stand as an unbiased source. And comparing us to carnivores isn't exactly kosher. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. As far as cutting, pretty sure flint knives, spears and axes were developed by primitive man. |
|
||
| Comparing our teeth today to those of our primitive ancestors is intentionally disingenuous or just simply ignorant of all history of mankind. Each is equally probable in this case. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: ...leather hide of a deer. [/quote] So.... deer don't have skin but underneath all that fur they have leather? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 14, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: ...leather hide of a deer. [/quote] So.... deer don't have skin but underneath all that fur they have leather? [/quote] Duh. |
|
||
| ... at least they aren't wearing chain mail. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: It is a lie guys ... you have been lied to and you believe the lie.[/quote] Speaking of lies, are you ever going to address your claim that Man didn't start to eat meat until he'd learned to create fire, when the evidence shows that Man was eating meat about 1,500,000 years [b][i]before[/i][/b] he learned to create fire? |
|
||
| Give or take a couple weeks right? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Give or take a couple weeks right?[/quote] Duh! I said [b][i]about[/i][/b]! Sheesh! |
|
||
|
Joe Joe wrote: "... humans do no have such teeth." Yes they do. They're the ones that aren't molars. Go smile in the mirror. You'll see them. |
|
||
| Maybe the canines? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, magicfish wrote: Joe Joe wrote: "... humans do no have such teeth." Yes they do. They're the ones that aren't molars. Go smile in the mirror. You'll see them. [/quote] No, that is a lie. None of your teeth compare to the sharp blades of carnivores. Taken from: https://www.vivahealth.org.uk/healthfeatures/what-our-natural-diet-are-humans-evolutionarily-adapted-eat-animals-plants-or-both Basic anatomical comparisons show that people have much more in common with herbivores than carnivores – or even omnivores! Just a look at an adult's mouth - let alone a child's- shows that the opening is too small for anything but relatively small pieces of food. We can't even swallow those whole, but must chew them finely and mix them with saliva before the ball of food will slide down the oesophagus. In contrast, carnivorous animals such as cats tear off chunks and swallow them almost immediately. Our teeth are much better suited for eating starches, fruits and vegetables – not tearing and chewing flesh. What many refer to as our 'canine teeth' are nothing at all like the sharp blades of true carnivores designed for processing meat. Our jaws can open and close as well as move forwards, backwards and side-to-side. This is ideal for biting off pieces of plant matter and then grinding them down with our flat molars. In contrast, carnivores' lower jaws have very limited side-to-side motion. They are fixed only to open and close, which adds strength and stability to their powerful bite. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote: Speaking of lies, are you ever going to address your claim that Man didn't start to eat meat until he'd learned to create fire, when the evidence shows that Man was eating meat about 1,500,000 years [b][i]before[/i][/b] he learned to create fire? [/quote] Absolutely not, those numbers are not "facts" - they are hypothesis. I'm not going to waste my time sitting around debating other people's guesswork. If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one. Just have to imagine yourself waking up on a distant plant alone and naked ... not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is, your first thought is not going to be "let's go hunt lions tigers and bears" ... that would be stupidity that would lead to the extinction of the human race before we even get started. Instead you are going to notice that your hands are the perfect size and shape to pick fruit off of a tree; it would be as if you realized the fruit on the trees were designed to be food for you. You wouldn't start eating meat until after you became friends with dogs ... which most likely would have happened about the same time man figured out how to build a fire. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
See we were born knowing how to eat fruit off a tree, we were taught how to eat flesh. Natural instinct vs learned behavior. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| No, we were born knowing how to suckle. Everything else is learned behavior. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: I'm not going to waste my time sitting around debating other people's guesswork.[/quote] I'll see you on that, and raise you one: I'm not going to waste my time sitting around debating your guesswork and ignorance. |
|
||
| JoeJoe YOUR guesswork is OK for you? OH MY! Irony impairment is HILARIOUS! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: No, we were born knowing how to suckle. Everything else is learned behavior. [/quote] Except Foosball. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: You wouldn't start eating meat until after you became friends with dogs ... which most likely would have happened about the same time man figured out how to build a fire. -JoeJoe [/quote] I can see it now... me and my Cairn Terrier happily fromping through the forest and one day; after seeing George scratch his fur (back then dogs didn't have skin) furiously, I thought... [i]'Huh, I wonder if I rubbed 2 sticks together what may happen?'[/i] Next thing you know I got fire and we have chicken for dinner. Well... I'm entertained. :) :applause: |
|
||
| I love the JoeJoe history of the world. FORGET about science, FORGET facts. No, all that is simply not relevant. Make up your own story and then tell everyone they have been lied to. Oh lord it is pathetic. |
|
||
| :ohyes: |
|
||
| JoeJoe is a man who thinks he is a loner... |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: JoeJoe is a man who thinks he is a loner...[/quote] Blasphemy. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one.[/quote] [i]Bobby: I'm older than you are. Mary: No you're not. Bobby: I am. Mary: Are not! Bobby: I'm nine years old, you're only three years old. Mary: If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one.[/i] |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: JoeJoe is a man who thinks he is a loner...[/quote] Blasphemy. [/quote] But he knew it wouldn't last. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 15, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one.[/quote] [i]Bobby: I'm older than you are. Mary: No you're not. Bobby: I am. Mary: Are not! Bobby: I'm nine years old, you're only three years old. Mary: If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one.[/i] [/quote] I am curious as to how JoeJoe defines what a fact is. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I am curious as to how JoeJoe defines what a fact is. [/quote] It was Nikola Tesla that said "today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality". Guessing when man learned to make a "knife", and then guessing when he learned to build a "fire", and comparing the two numbers is "math", not "science". Science is the observation of nature for the purpose of learning and understanding how the universe works. If they can't show you a working example in nature, they are most likely lying to you. Newton came up with his theory of gravity when he observed an apple fall from a tree and realized "there must be an invisible force pulling the apple to the ground" ... you don't need numbers to prove gravity exists, and ironically his numbers were all wrong yet they still teach children what gravity is by showing them a picture of Newton sitting under an apple tree. I have posted facts, they were dismissed because PETA is not an unbiased source. You only want to hear facts that agree with your own biases. Okay, I don't need PETA to prove my point. Facts are facts no matter where they come from. Here is a link to one of your "science" articles - you'll like this one - it goes back even further than I do and even has numbers in it: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/when-humans-became-meateaters/463305/ "It's the first primate ever known: Purgatorius ... an accomplished tree climber-and a vegan. It gave up the insect-based diet of its ancestors in favor of newly abundant fruits and flowers" "Then Sahelanthropus tchadensis entered the African primate scene ... Nevertheless, meat-eating still hadn't caught on among our ancestors" "Later on, the several species of Australopithecus ... weren't hooked on meat, either." "Did australopiths ever eat meat? It's possible. Just as modern chimps occasionally hunt colobus monkeys, our ancestors may have occasionally dined on the raw meat of small monkeys, too. Yet the guts of early hominins wouldn't have allowed them to have a meat-heavy diet" "It seems that our bodies had to adjust gradually, first getting hooked on seeds and nuts ... A seed-and-nut diet could have prepared our ancestors for a carnivorous lifestyle in another way, too: It could have given them the tools for carving carcasses." "But being capable is one thing; having the will and skill to go out and get meat is quite another. So what inspired our ancestors to look at antelopes and hippos as potential dinners? The answer, or at least a part of it, may lie in a change of climate ... As the rains became less abundant, so did the fruits, leaves, and flowers that our ancestors relied on. " So there ya have it, my "examples-in-nature" or your gutter-science ... any way you spin it we come from vegan DNA stock. We are not natural born meat eaters; much like our use of tools, it is learned behavior that most likely began out of necessity. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Are you being intentionally obtuse? |
|
||
|
So, by your example, the first "instinctual" thing we did was eat insects. We later had to LEARN to eat nuts and fruits, and then, later still, meat. This still doesn't prove that we are a vegan species by nature, nor does it contradict the contention that we ate meat before discovering fire. |
|
||
| Umm it might be called evolution. It may be that we are becoming better for it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: This still doesn't prove that we are a vegan species by nature, nor does it contradict the contention that we ate meat before discovering fire. [/quote] You are a primate. Primates are born with vegan bodies and vegan instincts. That is fact. Man needs fire to eat meat, it kills germs and bacteria, and is still required to this very day ... man may have been able to get away with eating a little raw meat here and there, but he would not be able to survive on a long term basis without being able to cook meat. It is just not possible for man to have eaten meat before he learned how to build a fire. The article I posted above points that out. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| So JoeJoe knows more than every anthropologist ever. Got it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 16, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: This still doesn't prove that we are a vegan species by nature, nor does it contradict the contention that we ate meat before discovering fire. [/quote] You are a primate. Primates are born with vegan bodies and vegan instincts. That is fact. Man needs fire to eat meat, it kills germs and bacteria, and is still required to this very day ... man may have been able to get away with eating a little raw meat here and there, but he would not be able to survive on a long term basis without being able to cook meat. It is just not possible for man to have eaten meat before he learned how to build a fire. The article I posted above points that out. -JoeJoe [/quote] 1. No they aren't. 2. No he doesn't. 3. No it isn't. I eat meat without cooking it quite often. 4. Yes he would, and he did for over 1 000 000 years. 5. Not only is it possible, it's all we did. Its why we had to follow the herd. |
|
||
|
JoeJoe it is right there in the term, "hunter-gatherer". It occupies 90% of human history. https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/hunter-gatherers But why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of what you seem to believe? How delusional. Try reading books JoeJoe, not just things that confirm your own wacky point of view. Those people who study these things and are trained to do so share their information. You don't have to keep guessing and be so wrong. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: You are a primate. Primates are born with vegan bodies and vegan instincts. That is fact.[/quote] :applause: [quote]On Mar 16, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Man needs fire to eat meat, it kills germs and bacteria, and is still required to this very day ... man may have been able to get away with eating a little raw meat here and there, but he would not be able to survive on a long term basis without being able to cook meat. It is just not possible for man to have eaten meat before he learned how to build a fire. The article I posted above points that out. -JoeJoe [/quote] Yes, fire kills everything... I mean, it's not like we have an immune system for handling bacteria. I bet that is what killed off the Neanderthals. They ate a spot of tainted raw meat and died from a bad case of diarrhea... |
|
||
| Man is a born fire eater. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I am curious as to how JoeJoe defines what a fact is.[/quote] It was Nikola Tesla that said "today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality".[/quote] It was also Nikola Tesla [b][i]who[/i][/b] said, "I'll have the chicken, thank you." |
|
||
|
There are Olympic stars who are variously vegans, vegetarians, and meat-eaters, who we all would agree are in good shape physically. That's really all that matters isn't it? Whatever happened back in the Alley-Oop days, we've evolved so that we now have a variety of choices as to diet. Everyone's different. Different bodies do better with different diets. Let a thousand diets bloom! So I don't really understand meat-eaters or vegetarians arguing on the basis of health or what our species was "meant" to do either way. If someone wants to argue in favor of one or the other diet based on perceived ethical concerns i.e. is it right to eat a formerly sentient being, or does eating meat contribute to further climate and world hunger problems, then that seems a more fruitful discussion. Personally, what another person eats or doesn't eat doesn't concern me that much. I am a fish eater, but not a land animal eater, and I probably couldn't articulate why that is. It does have something to do with respecting animals, and distaste (!) for the whole factory mass slaughter meat industry. If I were able to, I would like to be a vegan for ethical reasons, but I put that in the same class as buying from Amazon: To me, eating any animal including fish is wrong, but it's too hard to stop. I know my limits. |
|
||
| Only one person is speaking in absolutes. ;) |
|
||
| Yea I have not seen a meat eater here doing anything but pointing out obvious misunderstanding of fact. |
|
||
| As one grows older one losers one's appetite and one starts living on a cup of tea, burnt toast and a cigar. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote: Speaking of lies, are you ever going to address your claim that Man didn't start to eat meat until he'd learned to create fire, when the evidence shows that Man was eating meat about 1,500,000 years [b][i]before[/i][/b] he learned to create fire? [/quote] Absolutely not, those numbers are not "facts" - they are hypothesis. I'm not going to waste my time sitting around debating other people's guesswork. If you need numbers to prove your point you don't have one. Just have to imagine yourself waking up on a distant plant alone and naked ... not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is, your first thought is not going to be "let's go hunt lions tigers and bears" ... that would be stupidity that would lead to the extinction of the human race before we even get started. -JoeJoe [/quote] This claim got past me until it was pointed out to me. It is so ridiculous it probably should be pointed out. You're right, JoeJoe, that would be stupid. Imagine that you're a lion waking up on a distant plan[e]t alone and naked . . . not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is. Your first thought is not going to be, "let's go hunt tigers and bears." That would be stupidity that would lead to the extinction of lions, not to mention that if you're alone you wouldn't think "let's" as that implies that you're not alone. Imagine that you're a tiger waking up on a distant plan[e]t alone and naked . . . not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is. Your first thought is not going to be, "let's go hunt lions and bears." That would be stupidity that would lead to the extinction of tigers. Imagine that you're a bear waking up on a distant plan[e]t alone and naked . . . not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is. Your first thought is not going to be, "let's go hunt lions and tigers." That would be stupidity that would lead to the extinction of bears. Imagine that you're a lion or a tiger or a bear waking up on a distant plan[e]t alone and naked . . . not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is. Your first thought is going to be, "let's go hunt something we can catch and eat, like a rabbit, or a squirrel, or a vole, or a marmot, or a gopher, or a mouse, or a chicken, or a pigeon, or the like." That would not be stupidity. Now, imagine that you're a human waking up on a distant plan[e]t alone and naked . . . not knowing what "fire" or a "knife" is, and that you're not an idiot. After watching lions and tigers and bears hunt rabbits, squirrels, voles, marmots, gophers, mice, chickens, pigeons, and the like, your first thought is going to be, "let's go hunt something we can catch and eat, like a rabbit, or a squirrel, or a vole, or a marmot, or a gopher, or a mouse, or a chicken, or a pigeon, or the like." That would not be stupidity. You are the only one using your ridiculous theories to back up your ridiculous theories. See JoeJoe you don't have to take down a Mastodon in order to eat. Simply eating smaller animals, often without the "leather hide" IS meat eating. It is the HUGE flaw in your silly point of view. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: JoeJoe it is right there in the term, "hunter-gatherer". It occupies 90% of human history. [/quote] There it is right there - the lie - the hunter-gather theory is a lie. The prevailing logic was if man was a hunter-gather when he learned how to "farm", he must have always been a hunter-gather. That is incorrect, it is not true. We now know that man did not start-out as a "hunter-gather"; he ate like the monkeys in Africa do today - when they got hungry, they found food and ate it. It was all around them, there was no need to hunt or gather it. This lasted until there was a food shortage and man began to hunt and gather food. If your caveman is hunting, then go back further in time and you will find my caveman eating nuts and berries in the jungle without having to hunt or store anything. [quote] https://www.vivahealth.org.uk/healthfeatures/what-our-natural-diet-are-humans-evolutionarily-adapted-eat-animals-plants-or-both Because we have the fossilised jaws to study, we know that these primates were herbivores and ate fruits, nuts, berries and the cambium. [/quote] -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Who ate all the dinosaurs? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 16, 2019, landmark wrote: Different bodies do better with different diets. Let a thousand diets bloom! So I don't really understand meat-eaters or vegetarians arguing on the basis of health or what our species was "meant" to do either way. [/quote] It is important because there have been no vegan options since man started eating meat; the word "vegan" itself is only about a hundred years old. In others words, we are being forced to eat meat. They keep spewing lies telling people are body is meant for meat (no it is not), and that we have always eaten meat (no we have not), and that meat is healthy for us (no it is not). Then they take away all other options so we have nothing left to eat but meat - who here had a vegan menu at their school?? I'm thinking nobody. If you don't have an option, you don't have a choice. I didn't want to drink milk as a child, with tears in my eyes I cried as they forced me to drink it anyway. When my nephew told my parents he didn't want to eat animals, my parents didn't make him. By then, I had been vegetarian long enough they realized he would grow-up just fine and healthy on a plant-based diet. He is twenty-something now and has been vegetarian of his own choice since he was only three years old (very proud!) With every generation, more of the truth is coming out ... When I moved to this town twenty-some years ago, there was not a single "fake-meat" option at the grocery store. Now there are entire sections of grocery stores dedicated to plant-based diets. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]It is important because there have been no vegan options since man started eating meat; the word "vegan" itself is only about a hundred years old. In others words, we are being forced to eat meat. [/quote] While I'm sympathetic with much of what you say and do, I take issue with your statement that we are forced to eat meat. I admit I am no expert on this, but my understanding is that for most of pre-industrialized history, say, before the 1850s, most people in the world had diets that were mostly vegetarian with occasional meat for flavoring. Meat as a main course was for special days or for the rich. Think rice and beans or corn tortillas and cheese or pasta with tomato sauce or the extensive use of yams throughout Africa as diet staples for most of the world's population. And certainly today as you point out no one is forced to eat meat. There are many many alternatives available. It is true, however, that the meat manufacturers are a very strong lobby in the US and have the power to influence what are in my opinion many socially destructive decisions. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 17, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 16, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: JoeJoe it is right there in the term, "hunter-gatherer". It occupies 90% of human history. [/quote] There it is right there - the lie - the hunter-gather theory is a lie. The prevailing logic was if man was a hunter-gather when he learned how to "farm", he must have always been a hunter-gather. That is incorrect, it is not true. We now know that man did not start-out as a "hunter-gather"; he ate like the monkeys in Africa do today - when they got hungry, they found food and ate it. It was all around them, there was no need to hunt or gather it. This lasted until there was a food shortage and man began to hunt and gather food. If your caveman is hunting, then go back further in time and you will find my caveman eating nuts and berries in the jungle without having to hunt or store anything. [quote] https://www.vivahealth.org.uk/healthfeatures/what-our-natural-diet-are-humans-evolutionarily-adapted-eat-animals-plants-or-both Because we have the fossilised jaws to study, we know that these primates were herbivores and ate fruits, nuts, berries and the cambium. [/quote] -JoeJoe [/quote] Simply put ridiculous. |
|
||
| Lunacy. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 17, 2019, landmark wrote: [quote]It is important because there have been no vegan options since man started eating meat; the word "vegan" itself is only about a hundred years old. In others words, we are being forced to eat meat. [/quote] While I'm sympathetic with much of what you say and do, I take issue with your statement that we are forced to eat meat. I admit I am no expert on this, but my understanding is that for most of pre-industrialized history, say, before the 1850s, most people in the world had diets that were mostly vegetarian with occasional meat for flavoring. Meat as a main course was for special days or for the rich. Think rice and beans or corn tortillas and cheese or pasta with tomato sauce or the extensive use of yams throughout Africa as diet staples for most of the world's population. And certainly today as you point out no one is forced to eat meat. There are many many alternatives available. It is true, however, that the meat manufacturers are a very strong lobby in the US and have the power to influence what are in my opinion many socially destructive decisions. [/quote] Come now Landmark, what in the world does recorded history have to do with this conversation? Rethink what you just posted... gather from the buttocks, and try again. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 17, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: There it is right there - the lie - the hunter-gather theory is a lie. The prevailing logic was if man was a hunter-gather when he learned how to "farm", he must have always been a hunter-gather. That is incorrect, it is not true. We now know that man did not start-out as a "hunter-gather"; he ate like the monkeys in Africa do today - when they got hungry, they found food and ate it. It was all around them, there was no need to hunt or gather it.[/quote] [img]https://emojis.slackmojis.com/emojis/images/1531847402/4229/blob-clap.gif?1531847402[/img] [quote]On Mar 17, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: This lasted until there was a food shortage and man began to hunt and gather food. If your caveman is hunting, then go back further in time and you will find my caveman eating nuts and berries in the jungle without having to hunt or store anything. -JoeJoe [/quote] Only if the population stays fixed. With population growth and the daily intake of a very conservative 2000 calories, the local food growth would not support a few people as much as a tribe. Now before you have them picking berries and apples and nuts, consider that everything has a season, and local wildlife partaking as well. That squirrel eating all those nuts is competition and a well placed rock eliminated 2 problems. :) |
|
||
|
It's pretty amazing that we have 15 pages of pointless discussion when JoeJoe's original claim is demonstrably false: I'm a meat eater and I don't want to be a vegan. To anyone who knows anything about proof, that's the end of the discussion. |
|
||
|
You don't have the option to be vegan. There are ten items on the fast food menu, and virtually everything in the entire grocery store is owned by the same ten corporations that source products from the same factory farms. There may be a dozen brands of soup on the shelf, but every one of them was processed at the exact same factory by the same people. The food industry is like a magician holding a deck of boxes saying "pick a food, any food, it doesn't matter what food you pick" ... they already stacked the deck in their favor - you eat what they offer you. In order for you to prove to me you want to be a meat-eater, you would have to have access to a vegan menu in the first place. Until then, you don't know if you want to be vegan or not. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: In order for you to prove to me you want to be a meat-eater, you would have to have access to a vegan menu in the first place. Until then, you don't know if you want to be vegan or not. -JoeJoe [/quote] But... but... the title of... this thread? Still, highly entertaining :) |
|
||
| For you to be shown you're wrong would require you to be open to the possibility that you made a mistake. We ALL know that won't happen. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: But... but... the title of... this thread? [/quote] If a meat eater had the option to eat a delicious vegetable, he would. If a vegan had the option to eat a delicious piece of dead flesh, he would not. Every meat eater eats vegetables, but no vegans eat meat. Even if a vegan starts eating meat again, he still keeps eating vegetables. Even if a meat eater doesn't eat vegetables, he still seasons his meat with vegetables. Everyone is eating vegetables, but not everyone is eating dead animal. That is because everyone wants to be a vegan, but not everyone can. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
I can be a vegetarian if I wish but choose not to do so. I have drastically reduced my meat intake (for weight loss), but if I have to choose between a piece of beef or a carrot... I'll choose the beef. So... no I don't want to be a vegetarian. No one here is strictly a carnivore... we are omnivores, but you continue to glaze over that and instead move the goal posts to support your argument. I'm sorry that drinking milk as a child traumatized you, but I like my cheese. :) Still entertained! :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: Still entertained! :) [/quote] Like a car crash is entertaining :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: if I have to choose between a piece of beef or a carrot... I'll choose the beef. [/quote] That's your problem right there ... if your only option is carrot than yeah ... but interestingly enough, I don't eat carrots. What makes you think vegans survive on carrots?? Your mindset of being a vegan is all of the foods you like that you would give up, whereas my concept of vegan is all the amazingly awesome foods I've never seen or heard of before that I now get to enjoy. You think of vegan as less options, while vegan should/could actually be more options. How about my Paleo Roasted Pumpkin Ribs marinated with a delicious BBQ sauce cooked over a flame for several hours?? My food is really good. If you could choose from my menu or your menu, you would find many suitable options some of which you would easily prefer over your current meat options. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
If you go to the all-you-can-eat buffet and the only thing you can eat is the salad bar, well yeah ... who would want that?? Until there are vegan options on the buffet, you don't have a choice. Unless you are willing to do what I do and stop eating out ... I cook virtually all my own food. And not everyone can do that. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
I don't season my meat with anything, I prefer its natural taste. Can't stand veg, at a push I'd eat chips but for me I'd rather have some chicken, beef and pork, unseadoned and with a load of gravy. I've tried vegan food and it's disgusting. Definitely don't want to be vegan |
|
||
|
I chose carrot because I chose beef. It's called being specific. Leaving it as meat/veggies seemed... lacking. Yes I know there are several vegan dishes out there other than eating raw tubers. I make a nice green bean, African Pumpkin (squash), and onion dish; though I do add real butter. I have had a very nice black bean burger too; which was rather good, but not as good as beef. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: If you go to the all-you-can-eat buffet and the only thing you can eat is the salad bar, well yeah ... who would want that?? Until there are vegan options on the buffet, you don't have a choice. Unless you are willing to do what I do and stop eating out ... I cook virtually all my own food. And not everyone can do that. -JoeJoe [/quote] You keep throwing out the lack of options on menus. Since they are a business they are offering what sells; thought there are a lot more veggie friendly places popping up. One of my all time dishes is eggplant parmesan which I like better than the veal. I rarely eat out and cook most of my food in an office while at work. (I work a lot). |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Until then, you don't know if you want to be vegan or not.[/quote] Your arrogance knows no bounds. How dare you presume to know what I want or don't want? JoeJoe: you're pathetic. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: if I have to choose between a piece of beef or a carrot... I'll choose the beef.[/quote] That's your problem right there ... if your only option is carrot than yeah ... but interestingly enough, I don't eat carrots. What makes you think vegans survive on carrots??[/quote] And that's your problem right there: you're acting incredibly stupid. |
|
||
|
Once again, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian for over 2 decades, I feel qualified to add input. Since I started eating meat again, my health and strength returned. I also just read that vegans are experiencing issues with hair loss which I never knew about. No problem for me, as I'm always "high and tight." JoeJoe: Thank you again for feeding the homeless. Finally, here's a cartoon I did about nerdy children fighting which reminds me slightly of this thread, i.e., no resolution. Just switch 2 doctors with vegetarians and omnivores, and the children with adults. Enjoy: <img class=”Image” src=”https://toonsburgh.com/home/nerdy-children/” alt=”Image” title=”Image”> |
|
||
| Sorry folks, didn't know how to post image, here it is: |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: But... but... the title of... this thread? [/quote] If a meat eater had the option to eat a delicious vegetable, he would. If a vegan had the option to eat a delicious piece of dead flesh, he would not. Every meat eater eats vegetables, but no vegans eat meat. Even if a vegan starts eating meat again, he still keeps eating vegetables. Even if a meat eater doesn't eat vegetables, he still seasons his meat with vegetables. Everyone is eating vegetables, but not everyone is eating dead animal. That is because everyone wants to be a vegan, but not everyone can. -JoeJoe [/quote] No, it means that we are aware that we are omnivores. We will eat meat and veggies together. If you, somehow, took meat away, we'd survive eating veggies. But as long as meat is available, we're going to enjoy it! As far as vegans are concerned, they're constantly trying to find a good meat substitute. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Cartoonist wrote: Sorry folks, didn't know how to post image, here it is: [/quote] [img]https://toonsburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nerdy-children.jpg[/img] |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: if I have to choose between a piece of beef or a carrot... I'll choose the beef.[/quote] That's your problem right there ... if your only option is carrot than yeah ... but interestingly enough, I don't eat carrots. What makes you think vegans survive on carrots??[/quote] And that's your problem right there: you're acting incredibly stupid. [/quote] What makes you think he is acting? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Cartoonist wrote: Once again, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian for over 2 decades, I feel qualified to add input. Since I started eating meat again, my health and strength returned. I also just read that vegans are experiencing issues with hair loss which I never knew about. No problem for me, as I'm always "high and tight." [/quote] Eggs are designed for chickens and milk is not something adults should drink (man is the only creature that drinks milk past infancy). The "balanced diet" suggests you can eat unhealthy foods like eggs dairy and meat because you are going to balance it with healthy foods like fruits and vegetables. It doesn't work. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
:applause: ... and I just ate 5 boiled eggs. Well... it's been nice knowing all of you... |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Cartoonist wrote: Once again, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian for over 2 decades, I feel qualified to add input. Since I started eating meat again, my health and strength returned. I also just read that vegans are experiencing issues with hair loss which I never knew about. No problem for me, as I'm always "high and tight."[/quote] Eggs are designed for chickens . . . .[/quote] Eggs are eaten by a host of carnivores and omnivores. You may have a point, but I doubt it. |
|
||
| My old cat drinks milk so I guess it must be an old man. |
|
||
| Thank you very much Mike Gainor for posting that cartoon. I still don't how to do many things here on the Café. Much appreciated, thanks again. |
|
||
|
OK given how I was treated by joey, I shouldn't post this but I'll be the bigger man. https://www.homegrownfoodsummit.com/registration/ This is 7 days of webinars covering home grown food. I've consulted with many of the presenters for my book and found them all to be EXPERTS in their field. NO BS, just straight forward solutions to many gardening problems and situations. Here is a copy of the schedule, https://s3.amazonaws.com/hgfs2019/HomeGrownFoodSummit2019_Schedule_new.pdf Note: I'm not validating anything about joey's points, just providing a resource for those interested in growing their own food :) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 19, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 19, 2019, Cartoonist wrote: Once again, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian for over 2 decades, I feel qualified to add input. Since I started eating meat again, my health and strength returned. I also just read that vegans are experiencing issues with hair loss which I never knew about. No problem for me, as I'm always "high and tight." [/quote] Eggs are designed for chickens and milk is not something adults should drink (man is the only creature that drinks milk past infancy). The "balanced diet" suggests you can eat unhealthy foods like eggs dairy and meat because you are going to balance it with healthy foods like fruits and vegetables. It doesn't work. -JoeJoe [/quote] No. Eggs are not designed for chickens. Eggs are the favourite and often preferred meal of many many species. They are extremely nutritious and are readily available once a parent has been distracted or cunningly lured away from its nest. Milk is much more difficult to acquire but equally desirable to the opportunistic feeder. Alas it is a much more perilous undertaking to try and suckle directly from the teet of a mother from a different species. Man is the only one who drinks milk past infancy because the others haven't figured out how to do it yet. |
|
||
|
What ludicrous examples! Eggs are designed for chickens? Ummm no they are designed for reproduction. DUH! As if chickens are the only ones clever enough to use eggs LOL! I guess reading is fundamental but comprehension is an advanced skill. And JoeJoe the milk example is just so wacked out that I am not even going to address it. It can stand all by itself. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 20, 2019, Senor Fabuloso wrote: just providing a resource for those interested in growing their own food [/quote] They don't want to eat their own food. They want to eat the chicken's food (eggs), or they want to eat the cow's food (milk) ... or take the creatures life and just eat it. But to grow and eat their OWN food ... they don't want to do that. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
OH MY LORD you just get less cogent every post. "They want to eat the chicken's food (eggs)"? CHICKENS DO NOT EAT THEIR OWN EGGS! You put yourself forth as the world's foremost authority on EVERYTHING, and you can't even state a clear point. My lord it is hilarious. |
|
||
| [b][i]The Black Knight ALWAYS TRIUMPHS![/i][/b] ;) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 20, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 20, 2019, Senor Fabuloso wrote: just providing a resource for those interested in growing their own food [/quote] They don't want to eat their own food. They want to eat the chicken's food (eggs), or they want to eat the cow's food (milk) ... or take the creatures life and just eat it. But to grow and eat their OWN food ... they don't want to do that. -JoeJoe [/quote] Eggs are not chicken's food. Just sayin' |
|
||
|
LOL "eggs were designed for chickens" I can die now. I've officially heard it all. |
|
||
| Chew on this: were eggs designed for chickens or chickens designed for eggs? |
|
||
| Let me ask the Duck, the Turkey, the Nile Monitor and the Platypus. |
|
||
| Or a human female. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 20, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 20, 2019, Senor Fabuloso wrote: [quote]On Mar 20, 2019, Senor Fabuloso wrote: OK given how I was treated by joey, I shouldn't post this but I'll be the bigger man. https://www.homegrownfoodsummit.com/registration/ This is 7 days of webinars covering home grown food. I've consulted with many of the presenters for my book and found them all to be EXPERTS in their field. NO BS, just straight forward solutions to many gardening problems and situations. Here is a copy of the schedule, https://s3.amazonaws.com/hgfs2019/HomeGrownFoodSummit2019_Schedule_new.pdf Note: I'm not validating anything about joey's points, just providing a resource for those interested in growing their own food :) [/quote] [/quote] They don't want to eat their own food. They want to eat the chicken's food (eggs), or they want to eat the cow's food (milk) ... or take the creatures life and just eat it. But to grow and eat their OWN food ... they don't want to do that. -JoeJoe [/quote] What they don't want joey, is to be feed nonsense. That's why I posted those links. Better to get FACTS from EXPERTS than drivel, from the self deluded. |
|
||
| Magicians feed their audience nonsense and then expertly make sense of it, which is food for thought. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 20, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Eggs are not chicken's food. Just sayin' [/quote] THe white part of the egg is food for the baby chicken fetus inside the yolk; a chicken does not have an umbilical cord, thus the mother puts enough food in the egg for it to hatch. So yes, eggs very much are indeed food specifically designed for chickens. This video will give you the truth about eggs and the egg industry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4 -JoeJoe |
|
||
| JoeJoe sorry to tell you but other animals use eggs. But again facts are not really your strong suit is it? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 21, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 20, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Eggs are not chicken's food. Just sayin'[/quote] THe white part of the egg is food for the baby chicken fetus inside the yolk[/quote] Much as I hate to agree with JoeJoe – even more than I hate agreeing with Ron – he's correct here: the albumen (that's what the white part's called, JoeJoe) is intended to feed the chick before it hatches. It doesn't remotely make up for all of the stupid things JoeJoe's written here, but it would be disingenuous to say that it's wrong. |
|
||
|
An egg represents the whole not a part, so no... the egg itself does not consume itself. It may be semantics but as others who have posted mentioned... words have meaning. Not to say that I'm not entertained. |
|
||
| Is a chicken, a chicken, when its an egg? Is a chicken, a chicken when it hatches Or is it only a chic? |
|
||
| It is correct, but it isn't what he meant. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 21, 2019, tommy wrote: Or is it only a chic?[/quote] Or a suave? |
|
||
| In graduate school statistics class, we had a professed mathematically prove the egg came first... |
|
||
| In graduate school biology class, we had a professor prove the chicken came first... |
|
||
| Did Adam have a belly button? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button? [/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button? [/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) [/quote] Don't think so? "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1:26 |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button? [/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) [/quote] Only as a stepping stone to becoming vegan. Try to keep up. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button?[/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) [/quote] I'm pretty sure that he wasn't [i]born[/i]. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button?[/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) [/quote] I'm pretty sure that he wasn't [i]born[/i]. [/quote] From the Book Of JoeJoe: Chapter: Every meat eater wants to be a vegan and I can prove it to you: Verse 14: [quote]You are a primate. Primates are born with vegan bodies and vegan instincts. That is fact. [/quote] |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 22, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Everything you season your meat with is designed to trick your brain into thinking it is a plant . . . .[/quote] Some people put turkey gravy on mashed potatoes. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Mar 23, 2019, landmark wrote: Did Adam have a belly button?[/quote] No... but he was born a vegetarian.... ;) [/quote] I'm pretty sure that he wasn't [i]born[/i]. [/quote] From the Book Of JoeJoe: Chapter: Every meat eater wants to be a vegan and I can prove it to you: Verse 14: [quote]You are a primate. Primates are born with vegan bodies and vegan instincts. That is fact. [/quote] [/quote] Then why is it, the first thing we feed on is milk? Not very vegan. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 27, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Then why is it, the first thing we feed on is milk? Not very vegan. [/quote] Vegan don't eat animal products ... are you suggesting that human mothers are animals?? A human mother produces milk for the sole purpose of nourishing her baby - there is no moral contradiction in breastfeeding. If she is not your mom, it is not your milk. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 27, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Then why is it, the first thing we feed on is milk? Not very vegan.[/quote] Vegan don't eat animal products ... are you suggesting that human mothers are animals??[/quote] Of course they are. |
|
||
|
The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór) was not simply caused by a natural event, a potato blight, but also by the mass compulsory purchase of farm animals there to feed the British army abroad, which left the Irish short of food in general before the potato blight. Every meat eater did not want to be a vegan in The Great Famine, did they? |
|
||
|
You ignored my post which 100% proved you wrong. I don't season my meat with anything. Today for breakfast I had two chicken fillets, grilled and with a side of steak. All unseasoned and with no veg because veg tastes awful. Get off your high horse and realise there is nothing wrong with eating meat. Animals do not have the same worth as a human, until a giraffe performs life saving surgery on a child or a dog composes a symphony, go away. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 30, 2019, Elizabeth Brookes wrote: Today for breakfast I had two chicken fillets, grilled and with a side of steak. [/quote] Grilled ... seasoned with smoke ... when a lion eats it's prey, it is still breathing. If you were truly a carnivorous animal, you'd be able to do the same. It's not about eating meat, it is about eating growth hormones steroids and antibiotics, with animals forced to live in their own feces in a shed never to see sunshine on their face or lay in the grass. Law of the land: you kill it, you eat it. They don't even eat the animals, half of them "expire" and get thrown in the dumpster - your food is only worthless because you throw it away. Keep doing that, and you won't have anything to eat. I'm not an animal, I'm not a man ... I am a human being. And I'm already off my high horse: five years ago, I posted a video tour of the McDonald's chicken nugget factory where I made fun of vegans ... then one day I realized they were right. Nobody could make me vegan before my time. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong ... here is the video I should have posted five years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql8xkSYvwJs -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 30, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Mar 30, 2019, Elizabeth Brookes wrote: Today for breakfast I had two chicken fillets, grilled and with a side of steak. [/quote] Grilled ... seasoned with smoke ... when a lion eats it's prey, it is still breathing. If you were truly a carnivorous animal, you'd be able to do the same. -JoeJoe [/quote] Do you read what you write? This is why I won't watch anything you post because it is likely to contain statements just as ignorant as this. Lions kill prior to eating. They are not serial killers. Certainly by the time they get to marrow and such the prey is dead. The idea that they easy prey while breathing, and somehow this is a qualifying factor for being a carnivorous animal is just so bereft of fact it is hard not to laugh. Please back up your claim that to be a carnivore one must eat living skims animals while they breathe. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 30, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Lions kill prior to eating. They are not serial killers. Certainly by the time they get to marrow and such the prey is dead. [/quote] Exactly - the lion eats what he kills, he eats it fresh while it is still warm and he does so without seasoning it with anything what-so-ever ... he has the teeth, the claws, and the digestive system to do so while man does not. The lion does not stick his prey in a box of ice for weeks and then throw it away. Man is the serial killer. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Would if he could? Also how about you back up the claim they eat it while it is breathing? No need to take you seriously. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 30, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Would if he could? Also how about you back up the claim they eat it while it is breathing? No need to take you seriously. [/quote] [i]And Saint JoeJoe raised the Tomato up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy Tomato that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies arguments to tiny bits in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin, and the people did not feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu...[/i] |
|
||
|
[quote]Animals do not have the same worth as a human, until a giraffe performs life saving surgery on a child or a dog composes a symphony, go away. [/quote] True, but giraffes never make you watch YouTube videos of "Sam the Bellhop," so I figure it's a wash. |
|
||
| Earth is a rare planet where "fire" is possible and therefore "cooking" is possible here. Cooked food is a rarity in the Universe and many civilizations come to Earth and pretend to be human beings for a short amount of time for the sheer pleasure of eating "cooked" food. As for the morality of eating living beings, I go back to the ancients who said "Everything is maya" - everything is an illusion. The idea that things are alive is an illusion that one must break free from. One of the oldest name for a creator being was the "Trickster" - the idea being a great trick is being played on all of us making us believe that we are somehow "inside" the physical bodies that we use to express ourselves. We are not here. The bodies are merely antennas that allows a unique expression through that body. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 31, 2019, prankmonster wrote: ...many civilizations come to Earth...[/quote] And have for thousands of years. Doug |
|
||
| Beam me up, Brooksie. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 31, 2019, Dougini wrote: [quote]On Mar 31, 2019, prankmonster wrote: ...many civilizations come to Earth...[/quote] And have for thousands of years. Doug [/quote] Yea..... no. Not a single bit of evidence exists for ANYTHING like this. Sorry. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Mar 31, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Yea..... no. Not a single bit of evidence exists for ANYTHING like this. Sorry. [/quote] Are you saying if you are not aware of the existence of such evidence, the evidence possibly can't exist outside of your awareness space? |
|
||
|
I am saying that any evidence brought forth to this point in time has been debunked very easily. Perhaps it exists. Perhaps it has happened. BUT the evidence that has been brought forth for examination has not stood up to scrutiny. If you have evidence that withstands scrutiny then by all means bring it forth. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 1, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I am saying that any evidence brought forth to this point in time has been debunked very easily. Perhaps it exists. Perhaps it has happened. BUT the evidence that has been brought forth for examination has not stood up to scrutiny. If you have evidence that withstands scrutiny then by all means bring it forth. [/quote] Maxim A. Makukov and Vladimir I. Shcherbak worked 13 years on the Human Genome Project. They literally helped to map the human genome. They have both come out publicly stating that the human DNA has been designed by an higher intelligence. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 1, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 1, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I am saying that any evidence brought forth to this point in time has been debunked very easily. Perhaps it exists. Perhaps it has happened. BUT the evidence that has been brought forth for examination has not stood up to scrutiny. If you have evidence that withstands scrutiny then by all means bring it forth. [/quote] Maxim A. Makukov and Vladimir I. Shcherbak worked 13 years on the Human Genome Project. They literally helped to map the human genome. They have both come out publicly stating that the human DNA has been designed by an higher intelligence. [/quote] They came to a conclusion. They are entitled to their conclusion. But I would not want their conclusion taught in a science class, along with their findings on DNA, because there's no objective facts to SUPPORT their conclusion! |
|
||
| Good point Ed. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 1, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: They came to a conclusion. They are entitled to their conclusion. But I would not want their conclusion taught in a science class, along with their findings on DNA, because there's no objective facts to SUPPORT their conclusion! [/quote] You generally want to look to the "Experts" of the field to know more about that field, right? Two people who gave 13 years of their lives to study the human genome, I mean who else would be more of an expert to notice the oddness in the human genome compared to other creatures on Earth? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 1, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 1, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: They came to a conclusion. They are entitled to their conclusion. But I would not want their conclusion taught in a science class, along with their findings on DNA, because there's no objective facts to SUPPORT their conclusion! [/quote] You generally want to look to the "Experts" of the field to know more about that field, right? Two people who gave 13 years of their lives to study the human genome, I mean who else would be more of an expert to notice the oddness in the human genome compared to other creatures on Earth? [/quote] I will acknowledge their work on the genome, and any physical information they find. I don't have to accept any [i]philosophical[/i] decisions they make, nor do I want those philosophical decisions taught as science. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: I will acknowledge their work on the genome, and any physical information they find. I don't have to accept any [i]philosophical[/i] decisions they make, nor do I want those philosophical decisions taught as science. [/quote] Well then you should also acknowledge their work on this theory for they are not simply "philosophical musings" The released a paper about it which was published on the prestigious science journal "Icarus" where they showed that the human genotic code has features that defy natural explanations. [quote][i]Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10-13). The patterns display readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.[/i][/quote] |
|
||
|
Their work to map the genome is phenomenal, they deserve full recognition for that. But their determination that this HAS to be an act of God is a philosophical conclusion on their part, and should not be taught as science. It would be as if the teacher were teaching about light refraction and chose to end with; "And we see from this that the rainbow is such a wonderful thing, that it must have been created by God!" Understand, I am not agnostic or atheist, I believe in God, (Although not in a strict interpretation of the Bible.) But I don't think God (or a "creator,") should be taught in science class under the guise of; "theres no other way to explain it!" |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Their work to map the genome is phenomenal, they deserve full recognition for that. But their determination that this HAS to be an act of God is a philosophical conclusion on their part, and should not be taught as science. It would be as if the teacher were teaching about light refraction and chose to end with; "And we see from this that the rainbow is such a wonderful thing, that it must have been created by God!" Understand, I am not agnostic or atheist, I believe in God, (Although not in a strict interpretation of the Bible.) But I don't think God (or a "creator,") should be taught in science class under the guise of; "theres no other way to explain it!" [/quote] Gotta say I like this! |
|
||
|
Is their conclusion unique to only the human genome or to all animals and/or life? If they claim the pattern only shows up in the human genome, then they would have to account for why the human genome shares so much similarity with other presumably non-extra-terrestrial mammalian genomes. If the claim is that all terrestrial life shows the same pattern, then that would be consistent with even a one-celled creature arriving from outer space and evolving as per Darwin into the rest of life, including humans; that is, rather than humans coming from outer space, it could have been just a cell. Either way, that theory sounds pretty problematic. |
|
||
|
Not all vegans have health problems. -Monsanto |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Their work to map the genome is phenomenal, they deserve full recognition for that. But their determination that this HAS to be an act of God is a philosophical conclusion on their part, and should not be taught as science. It would be as if the teacher were teaching about light refraction and chose to end with; "And we see from this that the rainbow is such a wonderful thing, that it must have been created by God!" Understand, I am not agnostic or atheist, I believe in God, (Although not in a strict interpretation of the Bible.) But I don't think God (or a "creator,") should be taught in science class under the guise of; "theres no other way to explain it!" [/quote] They are not saying this is an act of God. They are simply saying that the artificiality that seem so apparent in the human genome can only be explained by tampering. Not by God but by a higher intelligence. We humans with only our limited few hundred year old knowledge can alter genes right now, we can create goats that produce spider milk. We can clone. They are simply suggesting that human genome has been messed with by an advanced civilization. Not a divine being. [quote]On Apr 2, 2019, landmark wrote: Is their conclusion unique to only the human genome or to all animals and/or life? If they claim the pattern only shows up in the human genome, then they would have to account for why the human genome shares so much similarity with other presumably non-extra-terrestrial mammalian genomes. If the claim is that all terrestrial life shows the same pattern, then that would be consistent with even a one-celled creature arriving from outer space and evolving as per Darwin into the rest of life, including humans; that is, rather than humans coming from outer space, it could have been just a cell. Either way, that theory sounds pretty problematic. [/quote] It would make sense why the human genome would have so much similarity with other creatures on Earth. If I came to a planet and picked the most intelligent creature available at the time and tampered with it, it would still retain many many features and share similarities with others from that planet. Small changes may have big impact and consequences. Our physical bodies share 96% dna with Chimps but they are not writing poems and contemplating life, are they? |
|
||
|
I am having trouble understanding what your viewpoint is. The fact that humans share much of the same DNA as other animals was my point. Exactly: small differences make big changes. Read my comments again. Since all animals share a lot of common DNA, how do you know that it wasn't a one-celled animal on Earth that eventually evolved, per Darwin, into humans rather than some extraterrestrial visit that put humans on Earth? And the P-value you quoted of P <10-13 is impossible. I'm no statistician, but that was probably meant to be .10 to .13 as a P-value must be less than 1. But even so, that's far from what most statisticians call a significance level that would reject chance as an explanation. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 3, 2019, landmark wrote: And the P-value you quoted of P <10-13 is impossible. I'm no statistician, but that was probably meant to be .10 to .13 as a P-value must be less than 1.[/quote] I suspect that he means 10^(−13) = 0.0000000000001. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 3, 2019, S2000magician wrote: I suspect that he means 10^(−13) = 0.0000000000001. [/quote] By a totally staggering coincidence that is also the telephone number of an Islington flat where Landmark once went to a very good party and met a very nice girl whom he totally failed to get off with - she went off with a gatecrasher. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 3, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Apr 3, 2019, S2000magician wrote: I suspect that he means 10^(−13) = 0.0000000000001.[/quote] By a totally staggering coincidence that is also the telephone number of an Islington flat where Landmark once went to a very good party and met a very nice girl whom he totally failed to get off with - she went off with a gatecrasher.[/quote] That's so sad. |
|
||
| For her, Bill, for her. |
|
||
| So then Trismegistus was telling the truth. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 3, 2019, landmark wrote: For her, Bill, for her.[/quote] Um . . . yeah . . . that's what I meant. Sorry . . . uh . . . if I didn't make that . . . er . . . clear. I mean, y'know, like really clear. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 3, 2019, landmark wrote: I am having trouble understanding what your viewpoint is. The fact that humans share much of the same DNA as other animals was my point. Exactly: small differences make big changes. Read my comments again. Since all animals share a lot of common DNA, how do you know that it wasn't a one-celled animal on Earth that eventually evolved, per Darwin, into humans rather than some extraterrestrial visit that put humans on Earth? [/quote] My viewpoint, Let's see. I never stated that one celled life form didn't evolve into bipedal mammals. What is being said is that somewhere along the way, an advanced civilization came across one of those bipedal hairless apes and tampered with them and turned them into humans. Forget the experts who studied human genome. Forget numbers. What other proof does one need than our very own experience. There is no other contemporaries to human beings on Planet Earth. There is nothing like us. Our closest biological relatives have nothing on us. There is an ocean between us and them. Our biological bodies clearly belonged to Earth, our minds do not. |
|
||
|
So you are saying that: a) it is specifically the human genome, and no other animal genome that shows the supposedly extraordinary intelligent pattern of DNA; therefore the "intelligent pattern" only shows up in those tiny parts of the human genome different from non-human primate genomes; and b) the only explanation for that extra special tiny difference in genomes was because of an advanced civilization's tampering, visiting sometime after the evolution of the advanced primates. c) No other proof is needed than our (your) very own experience. Okay. I think you're pretty much an army of one with that assortment. Don't worry; be happy. |
|
||
|
So I'm confused. Are humans the only species they believe are intelligently designed? So all other life as it is known is pure accident? Oh and as for what further proof is needed than our own experience I'd put forth "a lot" as my answer. According to this standard Bigfoot and The Loch Ness monster live thrive and survive in our world. Certainly your standard of proof must be higher. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote: So you are saying that: b) the only explanation for that extra special tiny difference in genomes was because of an advanced civilization's tampering, visiting sometime after the evolution of the advanced primates. [/quote] Simply because there are no natural explanations for the artificiality. It can be explained by outside manipulation. [quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Oh and as for what further proof is needed than our own experience I'd put forth "a lot" as my answer. [/quote] Do you have an explanation as to why human consciousness is so different than every other living creature on this Planet? |
|
||
|
Is it really different or is our ability to perceive it what differs? Your explanation seems to amount to little more than "I don't understand, therfore aliens". The absence of your ability to understand in no way proves another assertion. What about the absolute lack of proof of advanced civilizations having been here? NONE that stands up to scrutiny. Much the same way that not knowing how the universe was created proves a God theory, not knowing this in no way proves what you seem to think. There were many things we did not understand but now do. Not understanding doesn't equate to aliens. Lastly I do n not need to have an explanation to know another is incorrect. |
|
||
|
[quote] Do you have an explanation as to why human consciousness is so different than every other living creature on this Planet? [/quote] Yes. The same reason a virus is so different from an octopus (see Darwin, Charles). |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Is it really different or is our ability to perceive it what differs? Your explanation seems to amount to little more than "I don't understand, therfore aliens". The absence of your ability to understand in no way proves another assertion. What about the absolute lack of proof of advanced civilizations having been here? NONE that stands up to scrutiny. Much the same way that not knowing how the universe was created proves a God theory, not knowing this in no way proves what you seem to think. There were many things we did not understand but now do. Not understanding doesn't equate to aliens. Lastly I do n not need to have an explanation to know another is incorrect. [/quote] Do you understand? Can you point to any human being that understands human consciousness? or any school of thought or any working theory that seeks to explain the human consciousness? What about the absolute lack of proof that human consciousness resides within our biological bodies? [quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote: Yes. The same reason a virus is so different from an octopus (see Darwin, Charles). [/quote] A virus is not conscious. A human being in a lab created a set of proteins that replicated itself that functionally and observationally could be categorized as viruses. An octopus is not conscious like a human being is. There is no evolutionary prescription for consciousness. You are strictly talking bodies. Of course there are different bodies and they all evolve to cater to the particular planet they find themselves in. The problem in our disconnect in this conversation is somehow you believe that your consciousness or "you" or whatever you perceive as you is inside your biological prison. |
|
||
|
Ok let me help. A lack of understanding in no way proves your point. It certainly does not lead to aliens. So basically God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God is your proof you choose to put forth. And since weer lack proof that he isn't God he then must be. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Ok let me help. A lack of understanding in no way proves your point. It certainly does not lead to aliens. So basically God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God is your proof you choose to put forth. And since weer lack proof that he isn't God he then must be. [/quote] A lack of understanding from an objective reality view point. We keep looking at physical things trying to understand and observe non-physical things. There is no indication anywhere that God is love. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, prankmonster wrote: ...Do you have an explanation as to why human consciousness is so different than every other living creature on this Planet? [/quote] Unless you are actually a Vulcan doing a mind melt I don't see how you can measure consciousness of non-human life. As a test... I tried to read the consciousness of my puppet Behemoth... I sensed he had a left-handed mindset. |
|
||
| My daughter in law is vegan and she is the fittest person I know: she is a runner. She has just had a baby girl and I guess she will also be a vegan but at the moment she is drinking only milk and I also guess that is allowed. |
|
||
| Whose milk? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote: Whose milk? [/quote] Only's... |
|
||
| I am not sure who owns the milk but the baby seems to be demanding it. :bawl: |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Ok let me help. A lack of understanding in no way proves your point. It certainly does not lead to aliens. So basically God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God is your proof you choose to put forth. And since weer lack proof that he isn't God he then must be. [/quote] A lack of understanding from an objective reality view point. We keep looking at physical things trying to understand and observe non-physical things. There is no indication anywhere that God is love. [/quote] You are giving JoeJoe a run for his money in the most ridiculous position taken in this thread. It has become a very competitive title. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Apr 4, 2019, prankmonster wrote: ...Do you have an explanation as to why human consciousness is so different than every other living creature on this Planet? [/quote] Unless you are actually a Vulcan doing a mind melt I don't see how you can measure consciousness of non-human life. As a test... I tried to read the consciousness of my puppet Behemoth... I sensed he had a left-handed mindset. [/quote] Forget non-human life, How about measuring consciousness in humans? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, prankmonster wrote: Forget non-human life, How about measuring consciousness in humans? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan? [/quote] I believe they are called doctors... :) [url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/08/18/how-measure-consciousness/cl7K8Xk5eIpGsNyl5TMlzM/story.html]how to measure consciousness[/url] |
|
||
|
[quote]How about measuring consciousness in humans? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan?[/quote] How about the square root of Paris? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, landmark wrote: [quote]How about measuring consciousness in humans? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan?[/quote] How about the square root of Paris? Do you know a human that can do that or a vulcan? [/quote] Don't know about Paris, but here is the square roots of NYC and Brooklyn. https://squarerootsgrow.com/ |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: I believe they are called doctors... :) [url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/08/18/how-measure-consciousness/cl7K8Xk5eIpGsNyl5TMlzM/story.html]how to measure consciousness[/url] [/quote] Doctors are sales people. They sell things to you. Since we are dropping links, here are the world's leading scientists admitting we don't really understand and they define consciousness as an unsolved problem. [url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness] Will we ever solve the problem of Consciousness?[/url] Here is United states govt research paper on human consciousness concluding that no other creature on Earth plays or behaves or interacts the way humans do. [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5924785/]Why are so different from the others?[/url] |
|
||
| So naturally the ONLY explanation for such a thing must be aliens LOL. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: So naturally the ONLY explanation for such a thing must be aliens LOL. [/quote] Because naturally speaking, such things are not naturally observed, anywhere. If something cannot be of natural origin, the only logical explanation is that it is of artificial origin. No many contenders for artificial tampering of life than advanced civilizations. |
|
||
| You skip a great many solutions on your way to your non provable one. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: You skip a great many solutions on your way to your non provable one. [/quote] Name two. |
|
||
|
I'll name the easiest one. We simply have not found a way to measure it as of yet. This one has a lot more plausibility than aliens. See you believe aliens exist and assume they tampered with humans and then use your beliefs to prove your assumption. It is ridiculous. You contend this idea in spite of no proof being brought forth to date which has not been completely debunked. Bring forth physical evidence for us. My suggestion is to stop watching Anchient Aliens. Every one of those guys is a fraud. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I'll name the easiest one. We simply have not found a way to measure it as of yet. This one has a lot more plausibility than aliens. See you believe aliens exist and assume they tampered with humans and then use your beliefs to prove your assumption. It is ridiculous. You contend this idea in spite of no proof being brought forth to date which has not been completely debunked. Bring forth physical evidence for us. My suggestion is to stop watching Anchient Aliens. Every one of those guys is a fraud. [/quote] But what about those documentaries of Men in Black with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. Isn’t that proof enough? :) |
|
||
| I stand corrected. Thanks for helping me out. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: I'll name the easiest one. We simply have not found a way to measure it as of yet. This one has a lot more plausibility than aliens. See you believe aliens exist and assume they tampered with humans and then use your beliefs to prove your assumption. It is ridiculous. You contend this idea in spite of no proof being brought forth to date which has not been completely debunked. Bring forth physical evidence for us. My suggestion is to stop watching Anchient Aliens. Every one of those guys is a fraud. [/quote] The problem is not measuring. There are no precursors for human consciousness. It arrived on the scene unexpectedly with nothing before to naturally explain where it would come from or to understand what it is. To this day, all we understand is that if there is a damage to the brain, your ability to express the quality of your consciousness diminishes. There are many brain researches who propose the idea that brain functions more like an antenna rather than creating consciousness, it receives it. Physical evidence, looking at physical things trying to understand non-physical things seem more ridiculous. We are not dumb. We have been looking. There is no indication that our ability to have consciousness is a biological phenomena. |
|
||
|
So of course since you don't understand it therefore it is aliens. And naturally when nobody could explain gravity it aliens was a plausible explanation. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: [quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote: Whose milk? [/quote] Only's... [/quote] Took me a while because I'm slow... |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: So of course since you don't understand it therefore it is aliens. And naturally when nobody could explain gravity it aliens was a plausible explanation. [/quote] Show me a human who understands. |
|
||
|
"Aliens" is going to be my go-to explanation from now on. It beats "The Russians." |
|
||
|
"I don't understand, therefore aliens". HILARIOUS reasoning. So why can't he answer if EVERYTHING we can't explain is aliens? So the sunset was originally obviously aliens. Again STOP watching Ancient Aliens. IT IS ALL LIES. It is EASILY disprovable, and many spend a lot of time doing just that. Also WHY IS THERE NO PROOF of an ancient advanced civilization? Come on really. It is hilariously silly. |
|
||
|
[quote]... Here is United states govt research paper on human consciousness concluding that no other creature on Earth plays or behaves or interacts the way humans do. [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5924785/]Why are so different from the others?[/url] [/quote] Wow... there is a stray cat that we feed at work. It does not behave anything like the flies. There is only one logical conclusion! The cat is an Alien! ... or the flies... ... come to think of it those birds look suspect too... .....dang mind controlling birds making me suspect the poor cat and flies! Here's my proof... https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/41165/birds-can-mind-control-everyone-what-will-happen-to-humans |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, prankmonster wrote: The problem is not measuring. There are no precursors for human consciousness.[/quote] I, for one, am very interested in seeing your proof of this assertion. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 6, 2019, prankmonster wrote: The problem is not measuring. There are no precursors for human consciousness.[/quote] I, for one, am very interested in seeing your proof of this assertion. [/quote] I'm interested in proof of anything he claims. On another note your one sentence has taught me a lot about punctuation. For instance the use of the comma. And furthermore how to SPELL it was news to me! My early childhood education continues. Thank you. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 6, 2019, prankmonster wrote: The problem is not measuring. There are no precursors for human consciousness.[/quote] I, for one, am very interested in seeing your proof of this assertion. [/quote] [url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.b.10041]Here is a wonderful article citing peer reviewed papers. [/url] Here is a small preview: [Quote]At some point in its evolutionary history, our species Homo sapiens ceased to be a nonlinguistic, nonsymbolic organism, living in the world as presented to it by Nature, and instead began to exist in a world that it reconstructs in its own mind. Most scientists since Darwin have been content to explain this extraordinary transformation in human consciousness by the operation of natural selection. However, the human fossil and archaeological records indicate that modern human symbolic consciousness is not the culmination of the long trend that natural selection would predict. Instead, it shows that major change in the human past has been episodic and rare and that, as far as can be determined from the archaeological record, the passage from nonsymbolic to symbolic cognition is a recent event as well as an unprecedented one. So recent, indeed, that it significantly postdates the acquisition of modern human anatomy as expressed in skeletal structure. It, thus, appears most likely that the biological (neural) capacity underwriting the radically new behavioral mode arose as an incidental exaptation in the same process that produced the new skeletal structure of Homo sapiens, but that it lay unexpressed until it was “discovered” by means of a cultural innovation, plausibly the invention of language. As in the case of the modern anatomical structure, it appears that the new capacity was initially expressed in Africa and that its various behavioral potentials were sequentially discovered in a drawn‐out process that is continuing today. An “accidental” origin of the human capacity helps understand why so many human behaviors have proven self‐destructive and contradictory, a feature of our species that reductionist, selection‐based scenarios are hard‐put to explain[/quote] |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 6, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 6, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 6, 2019, prankmonster wrote: The problem is not measuring. There are no precursors for human consciousness.[/quote] I, for one, am very interested in seeing your proof of this assertion.[/quote] [url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.b.10041]Here is a wonderful article citing peer reviewed papers. [/url] Here is a small preview: [Quote]At some point in its evolutionary history, our species Homo sapiens ceased to be a nonlinguistic, nonsymbolic organism, living in the world as presented to it by Nature, and instead began to exist in a world that it reconstructs in its own mind. Most scientists since Darwin have been content to explain this extraordinary transformation in human consciousness by the operation of natural selection. However, the human fossil and archaeological records indicate that modern human symbolic consciousness is not the culmination of the long trend that natural selection would predict. Instead, it shows that major change in the human past has been episodic and rare and that, as far as can be determined from the archaeological record, the passage from nonsymbolic to symbolic cognition is a recent event as well as an unprecedented one. So recent, indeed, that it significantly postdates the acquisition of modern human anatomy as expressed in skeletal structure. It, thus, appears most likely that the biological (neural) capacity underwriting the radically new behavioral mode arose as an incidental exaptation in the same process that produced the new skeletal structure of Homo sapiens, but that it lay unexpressed until it was “discovered” by means of a cultural innovation, plausibly the invention of language. As in the case of the modern anatomical structure, it appears that the new capacity was initially expressed in Africa and that its various behavioral potentials were sequentially discovered in a drawn‐out process that is continuing today. An “accidental” origin of the human capacity helps understand why so many human behaviors have proven self‐destructive and contradictory, a feature of our species that reductionist, selection‐based scenarios are hard‐put to explain[/quote][/quote] Cool article. However, nowhere does it mention whether there were precursors to human consciousness or not. In fact, the only mention of the word "consciousness" is in the title and in the abstract; the paper itself doesn't mention consciousness at all. So . . . where's the proof of your assertion? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: However, nowhere does it mention whether there were precursors to human consciousness or not. In fact, the only mention of the word "consciousness" is in the title and in the abstract; the paper itself doesn't mention consciousness at all. So . . . where's the proof of your assertion? [/quote] Directly on the quote that I quoted itself, it says "the human capacity to understand". What do you understand or expect when you hear the word consciousness? |
|
||
| This in no way proves your assertion. |
|
||
|
Https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-impossible-burger-beef/?fbclid=IwAR2EYywhukkiIe07QGpHJPFrqBoNQ_oMt67yxvuWkVeavHmaOFtcyPLDuec "the Impossible Burger 'is still selling out and a top menu item nearly everywhere it's served'. Which is an impressive feat, considering more than 250 restaurants across America serve the vegan product, in at least 18 states" "Compared to beef burgers, the Impossible Burger uses 95% less land, which is particularly promising as 'almost half of the land area of Earth is being occupied by the animal farming industry, grazing, or feed crop production,'" "It also uses 74% less water and contributes 87% less greenhouse gas emissions to our environment." https://www.livekindly.co/vegan-impossible-burger-beef/?fbclid=IwAR2EYywhukkiIe07QGpHJPFrqBoNQ_oMt67yxvuWkVeavHmaOFtcyPLDuec -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: However, nowhere does it mention whether there were precursors to human consciousness or not. In fact, the only mention of the word "consciousness" is in the title and in the abstract; the paper itself doesn't mention consciousness at all. So . . . where's the proof of your assertion?[/quote] Directly on the quote that I quoted itself, it says "the human capacity to understand". What do you understand or expect when you hear the word consciousness?[/quote] It doesn't matter what I understand when I hear the word "consciousness". You asserted that there were no precursors to human consciousness. Let's see the proof of that assertion. |
|
||
|
Popular YouTube'r the "Vegan Zombie" makes a tuna fish sandwich for his parents to try for the first time, will his dad actually like it?? [youtube]QxYY2O2jdRs[/youtube] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: You asserted that there were no precursors to human consciousness. Let's see the proof of that assertion. [/quote] I already gave various citations from researchers in the field describing the absolute uniqueness and the impossibility of the the human experience which is what the word consciousness describes for there is no defined definition or understanding of what that word implies. It is a term we use to describe in general the experience of 'being' a human being. Searching for one word and missing what the messages are about. If there is an assertion that there are precursors to us, feel free to find them. |
|
||
|
Well... at least no one is challenging me on my Bird Mind Control link which means I have more credibility. :) ... or the birds have already gotten to you. Either way I feel validated! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: If there is an assertion that there are precursors to us, feel free to find them.[/quote] I didn't make such an assertion. You made the assertion that there are no such precursors. The burden of proof is yours. Please stop trying to fob it off on someone else. Either you have proof of your assertion, or you should retract it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: You asserted that there were no precursors to human consciousness. Let's see the proof of that assertion. [/quote] I already gave various citations from researchers in the field describing the absolute uniqueness and the impossibility of the the human experience which is what the word consciousness describes for there is no defined definition or understanding of what that word implies. It is a term we use to describe in general the experience of 'being' a human being. Searching for one word and missing what the messages are about. If there is an assertion that there are precursors to us, feel free to find them. [/quote] In other words you have made claims that you simply can not back up. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: Popular YouTube'r the "Vegan Zombie" makes a tuna fish sandwich for his parents to try for the first time, will his dad actually like it?? [youtube]QxYY2O2jdRs[/youtube] -JoeJoe [/quote] Another example of Vegans trying to make their vegetables look, taste, smell, and feel like meat. Keep em coming Joe Joe, I love it! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, magicfish wrote: Another example of Vegans trying to make their vegetables look, taste, smell, and feel like meat. Keep em coming Joe Joe, I love it! [/quote] I believe his mom pointed out it tasted better than actual tuna fish ... and no mercury either. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Tasted better than actual tuna fish? Wow. That's really saying something isn't it? Because dead fish on bread is delicious right? |
|
||
| When I hear the word consciousness I think of two opposite things, one being conscious and the other being subconscious. I think meat eaters are more consciousness left brain thinking, whereas vegans are more subconscious right brain thinking. Put simply, meat eaters are hard-nosed business sorts, while vegans are soft emotional sorts. |
|
||
|
[i]The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind[/i] https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0395564727 One of the classics in the field. Not very cutting edge anymore and disputed, but influential. [i]Consciousness Explained[/i] by Daniel Dennett https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316180653 Most modern neuroscientists subscribe to what Dennett lays out here or an emergent property of a society of neurons. |
|
||
| The Origin of Consciousness is God because God is pure Consciousness and the stuff he created naturally inherited it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: You made the assertion that there are no such precursors. The burden of proof is yours. Please stop trying to fob it off on someone else. Either you have proof of your assertion, or you should retract it. [/quote] I'm free to make statements. There is no burden. If there was a misunderstanding, it would be that I type these words as to somehow affect or change anyone. I have no such delusions. If the matter interests your avatar, you are more than welcome to research it. If you notice all my replies in this thread and those that reply to it, their messages are very personal and geared towards me, making assumptions about who I'm, what shows I watch, what I think and my replies are completely impersonal disregarding the speaker all together for I know what is relevant and what is completely irrelevant. I simply plant seeds where there are fertile grounds, they are welcome to water and grow it into a tree. [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, tommy wrote: The Origin of Consciousness is God because God is pure Consciousness and the stuff he created naturally inherited it. [/quote] Facts are facts. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: I'm free to make statements.[/quote] Even ridiculous ones. |
|
||
|
You plant the seeds and the mind controlling birds eat them. I think it may be too late for us. [i]All hail our Avian Overlords![/i] |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: You plant the seeds and the mind controlling birds eat them. I think it may be too late for us. [i]All hail our Avian Overlords![/i][/quote] Or Over[i]ladies[/i]: I'm given to understand that there are also girl birds. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: You made the assertion that there are no such precursors. The burden of proof is yours. Please stop trying to fob it off on someone else. Either you have proof of your assertion, or you should retract it. [/quote] I have no such delusions. [/quote] No. But you do seem to have other delusions. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 7, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, prankmonster wrote: I'm free to make statements.[/quote] Even ridiculous ones. [/quote] How wonderful it is that perceptions inside the individual's skull are not universal truths. [quote]On Apr 7, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: I think it may be too late for us. [/quote] No worries. Some humans are clearly not fertile nor relevant to the story. |
|
||
| Facts are what somebody makes of the evidence. On the same evidence, people can arrive at different conclusions. |
|
||
|
This thread is an incredible train wreck of false logic and outrageous claims. A perfect example of the proverb, "Never play chess with a pigeon." |
|
||
|
It STARTS with false logic and an outrageous claim LOL. Then it got worse! |
|
||
|
French vegans go 'wild' attacking butchers; face jail term https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/international/472375-french-vegans-go-wild-attacking-butchers-face-jail-term |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 8, 2019, prankmonster wrote: How wonderful it is that perceptions inside the individual's skull are not universal truths.[/quote] Amen! |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 8, 2019, WitchDocChris wrote: This thread is an incredible train wreck of false logic and outrageous claims. A perfect example of the proverb, "Never play chess with a pigeon." [/quote] Yep, they'll use their mind control powers every time to win. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 8, 2019, WitchDocChris wrote: This thread is an incredible train wreck of false logic and outrageous claims. A perfect example of the proverb, "Never play chess with a pigeon."[/quote] I'm more familiar with the admonition not to try to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig. |
|
||
| "Never play chess with a pigeon. They'll just kick the pieces everywhere, s**t all over the board, and think they won." |
|
||
| You’re my Dove. |
|
||
|
Melanie has a doctorate in the psychology of eating meat and in this video she does a great job at explaining the secret reason behind "why" we eat meat ... she did the research and has made an amazing discovery: [youtube]Wvm7xymgk_k[/youtube] -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
She has a doctorate in the psychology of eating meat? Which degree granting institution conferred that upon her? It is fascinating. So you know psychologists exist. Good step. |
|
||
|
As I understand it, she has a doctorate in psychology with her thesis being on "the psychology of eating meat". That is part of getting a doctorate, studying something and submitting a thesis. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Yea but that as usual was not what you said. Plus it does not answer the question of where she got her doctorate. But JoeJoe all her information came from BOOKS! Old ones most likely. How can you trust a single word she says? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 26, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Yea but that as usual was not what you said. Plus it does not answer the question of where she got her doctorate. [/quote] Well if you would quit being lazy and click the link you can hear her tell you in her own voice where she got her doctorate - duh. I'm not here to transcribe things for you, listen to what she has to say for yourself. https://youtu.be/Wvm7xymgk_k -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 26, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: - duh. I'm not here to transcribe things for you, -JoeJoe [/quote] Well, since you are trying to prove the title of this thread (23 pages and counting) a quick link such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Joy would be more persuasive than just constantly moving the goal posts... but that is just me. |
|
||
|
I agree with lots of post on this subject, especially this being a train wreck, interesting train wreck though. Dr. Joy is an interesting person swearing off meat after eating bad meat. She has her Master's in Education from Harvard and her Doctorate in Psychology from Saybrook Graduate School. She taught sociology and psychology at the University of Boston. Not knowing what specifically her doctorate is in, Saybrook has these fields: (Clinical Psychology, Ph.D.) (Psychology, Consciousness, Spirituality, and Integrative Health Specialization, Ph.D.) (Psychology, Creativity Studies Specialization, Ph.D.) (Psychology, Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal Psychology Specialization, Ph.D.) (Psychology, Ph.D.) (Psychology, Psychophysiology Specialization, Ph.D.) Dr. Joy appears to have the intelligence and the drive from a life changing event. Good for her. I got food poisoning from salad dressing in 1991... I thought I was going to die! (I still eat salad, and dressing) |
|
||
|
"Her ideas influenced subsequent studies of what has come to be known as the "meat paradox"—the apparent inconsistency in common attitudes toward animals, wherein people may express affection towards some animals while eating others—and the cognitive dissonance it entails." That's a really interesting idea. I think almost everyone has to come to terms with the cognitive dissonance in their lives in many different areas. Some people recognize it and change; some people recognize it and don't change; some people don't recognize it. I'm making no judgment here, just pointing out the different ways people deal with inconsistencies in their moral lives. For example, I strongly believe that Amazon is an exploitative company, and that Jeff Bezos has way too much financial and political power. Yet I will not give up on buying from Amazon. So in that case, I recognize the cognitive dissonance, but refuse to change. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, landmark wrote: "Her ideas influenced subsequent studies of what has come to be known as the "meat paradox"—the apparent inconsistency in common attitudes toward animals[/quote] I call it "butcher's choice" ... where people think they have a free and fair choice as to what they want to eat, but really the butcher has stacked the grocery store in his favor. "Pick a food - any food". [quote]On Apr 27, 2019, Magic_son wrote: Dr. Joy appears to have the intelligence and the drive from a life changing event. Good for her. I got food poisoning from salad dressing in 1991... I thought I was going to die! (I still eat salad, and dressing) [/quote] I was vegetarian for eight years in Maryland, and when I moved to South Carolina the vegetarian options did not exist here, thus I went back to eating meat. After getting sick with crohn's disease five years ago I went vegan. I can now eat without vomiting, I think that is a good thing. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| How did vegetarian options not exist? There were no vegetables? |
|
||
| I am glad for you that you can eat without vomiting. That is certainly a desired state of affairs. If I reached a condition where eating meat would make me vomit, I would probably go vegan as well. As I have not reached that point, I won't. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, magicfish wrote: How did vegetarian options not exist? There were no vegetables? [/quote] At that time, there were no vegan options in fast food places or restaurants; for example in Maryland "Subway" had veggie patties, but in South Carolina (hog country) they did not carry that product. And there was not a single "vegan meat" option in the frozen food department of any store at that time. And I was living in a room with no kitchen and had to eat out all the time. If I had access to a kitchen, I would have had more options. Without options, you pretty much eat what is on the menu. "Pick a food - any food" ... the butcher knows you are going to pick an animal, it is the only option. After doing this for so long, we become "conditioned" to it. Like I said before, if you go to the all-you-can-eat buffet, and the only thing you can eat is a small subset of the salad bar, you are going to end up eating meat ... you don't have a free choice. That is going to change. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 27, 2019, magicfish wrote: How did vegetarian options not exist? There were no vegetables? [/quote] At that time, there were no vegan options in fast food places or restaurants; for example in Maryland "Subway" had veggie patties, but in South Carolina (hog country) they did not carry that product. And there was not a single "vegan meat" option in the frozen food department of any store at that time. And I was living in a room with no kitchen and had to eat out all the time. If I had access to a kitchen, I would have had more options. Without options, you pretty much eat what is on the menu. "Pick a food - any food" ... the butcher knows you are going to pick an animal, it is the only option. After doing this for so long, we become "conditioned" to it. Like I said before, if you go to the all-you-can-eat buffet, and the only thing you can eat is a small subset of the salad bar, you are going to end up eating meat ... you don't have a free choice. That is going to change. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Again, why would you want vegetable patties or vegan meat? If plants are delicious and meat is nasty rotting death, why not just eat the plants? Why make them resemble nasty rotting death? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, magicfish wrote: If plants are delicious and meat is nasty rotting death, why not just eat the plants? Why make them resemble nasty rotting death? [/quote] And again ... I don't. Quit asking the same question expecting a different answer. What I ate today: kumquats from a tree, a few raw coffee beans, banana-strawberry smoothie, and a pot of rice and potatoes. I don't even own a refrigerator ... I don't eat any frozen or refrigerated food what-so-ever. And I can't even recall the last time I ate from a restaurant. :) The reason they are making the Impossible Burger resemble meat is so that people like you will eat it ... not people like me (duh). This is a product that is sold in the "meat" isle, not the "vegan" isle. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Why would I eat artificial meat? I love vegetables. If I want to eat vegetables, I eat vegetables. If I want to eat meat, I eat meat. So let me get this straight. It is your opinion that restaurants offer veggie burgers for meat eaters? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, magicfish wrote: It is your opinion that restaurants offer veggie burgers for meat eaters? [/quote] It is my opinion that restaurants offer "food" for people to eat. You keep wanting to make it "us verses them", no ... all people want good food to eat. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 27, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: It is my opinion that restaurants offer "food" for people to eat.[/quote] I agree, let the market decide. [quote]On Apr 27, 2019, JoeJoe wrote:You keep wanting to make it "us verses them", no ... all people want good food to eat. -JoeJoe [/quote] Once again... not what the title of this thread implies. |
|
||
| If a restaurant wants to offer vegan options great. If they don't have them you can't force them to other than with the market. Your ridiculously militant views on food are not law thank God. |
|
||
|
I've been reading this thread since the beginning, but I've resisted commenting until now. JoeJoe, I'd love to live on a meat isle. Can you please tell me where that isle is? An island that specializes in meat sounds great to me! Where the heck do you get raw coffee beans? And then you actually eat them? Why? What nutritional value do you get out of them? I guess that, in addition to not owning a refrigerator, you also don't own a stove or coffee pot. Sounds to me like you live a very minimal lifestyle and live off the land. You probably don't have or use money, and trade beads and folk art for the things that you absolutely need. I have to figure that your wife eats exactly the same way as you do. Oh no, let me guess- there hasn't been a companion in your life for quite some time, has there? I have psychic abilities, after all. I looked it up, and my sources claim that more people get sick from eating vegetables and fruit than get sick from eating meat. But I'm sure that you could find sources that would say that more people get sick from eating meat. And it's not an opinion of yours that restaurants offer "food" for people to eat- it's a fact! And "food" shouldn't be in quotes, unless you're referring to veggie "burgers" Then you can use quotes. A vegan restaurant in Australia that treated men like second class citizens just went out of business. The market place decided it for them, despite their good intentions. Despite what you say, your photo sure doesn't make you look like a very healthy guy. You look rather ill to me. But what do I know? I don't think that you've convinced a single person here that every meat eater wants to be a vegan, and you sure as heck haven't proven it. But don't worry, JoeJoe, I'm sure that AOC is looking to legislate making meat consumption illegal. PS- Everyone here has been pretty nice to you, but I'll come right out and say it- you're a freaking nut job. |
|
||
|
We were doing so well (though not very productive) in this thread without anyone adding personal attacks. Perhaps you should have continued resisting... |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 28, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: We were doing so well (though not very productive) in this thread without anyone adding personal attacks. [/quote] What are you talking about?? I think this is, has been, and will continue to be a productive thread. I've planted seeds ... seeds take time to grow. It took twenty-years for me to go from eating meat to becoming vegan, I don't expect anyone here to become vegan today or even tomorrow. The garden has taught me "patience". :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| If you think gardening requires patience, you should try hunting and fishing. |
|
||
| It is possible that Vegans do not have the strength to overcome small infections because there is something missing in their diet. |
|
||
|
The garden has taught me "patience." If you think gardening requires patience, you should try hunting and fishing. I believe these are the most productive comments in this thread. However, the truth is, (and here I go ASSuming) That both Vegans/Vegetarians and Meat-eaters all get their food from stores. Which can be full of all kinds of things that can be harmful. I truly salute anyone who can live either totally or mostly off grid. As far as personal attacks... I have learned that there are some of the best people with the best intentions here trying to help people. AND THEN.. there are others who APPEAR that they feel they are more meaningful on this earth than they are. Joe, you have a great sense of who you are and your meaning in this world. Even though I don't always agree with your philosophy, I think its a wonderful thing you are who you are! by the way... I still want to eat meant :) |
|
||
|
Hi JoeJoe, I am a meat eater and I do not want to be a vegan. That's one counterexample to your statement, "Every meat eater wants to be a vegan." Regards, Steve |
|
||
| We don’t have choices these days old boy. You want to be a vegan whether you like it or not. |
|
||
|
I could probably live off just salads for two or three days, so I guess I would be a good part-time vegan. :) Tom |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 28, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 28, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: We were doing so well (though not very productive) in this thread without anyone adding personal attacks. [/quote] What are you talking about?? I think this is, has been, and will continue to be a productive thread. I've planted seeds ... seeds take time to grow. It took twenty-years for me to go from eating meat to becoming vegan, I don't expect anyone here to become vegan today or even tomorrow. The garden has taught me "patience". :) -JoeJoe [/quote] This is a great way to help you sleep at night. "I plant seeds, seeds take time to grow". What a wonderful excuse for failure. These seeds are dead. Completely void after all content and logic. You are planting them in stone to boot. You keep bring proven absolutely wrong time and time again, contradicting yourself then claiming words don't have the agreed upon meaning. Nobody takes a single thing you say seriously, even when you accidentally swerve into the truth. Yourseeds have zero chance of growth. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 29, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: These seeds are dead.[/quote] A seed has to die before it can bear fruit. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 29, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 29, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: These seeds are dead.[/quote] A seed has to die before it can bear fruit. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Wait, so fruit grows from death? you said nothing grows from death- for about four pages. It's clear you're making this up as you go along. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 29, 2019, magicfish wrote: [quote]On Apr 29, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 29, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: These seeds are dead.[/quote] A seed has to die before it can bear fruit. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Wait, so fruit grows from death? you said nothing grows from death- for about four pages. It's clear you're making this up as you go along. [/quote] You beat me to it. Yet ANOTHER contradiction spewing from the uninformed. |
|
||
| Seeds are very informed, otherwise, they would not know what to grow into. |
|
||
|
How about this: "every meat-eater wants to eat vegan food". You already put vegan-fries next to your animal-hamburger. Schrodinger's cat: the cat is both alive and dead at the same time (quantum-physics). You will not know if you want to be vegan until the box is opened. I did not know I wanted to be a vegan until I realized my diet was literally killing me. I didn't become vegan, I was already vegan ... I just stopped eating meat. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
So that is what you get from that thought experiment? Isn't it just as likely that one will be a meat eater once that box is open? THAT IS THE POINT. Man once you reach the limits of your experience it goes downhill fast. Also according the the gospel of JoeJoe that experiment was published in a book. As we know all information from books is out dated. Can't now suddenly say it is valid. I TRIED A VEGAN food. It sucks! Get over it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: How about this: "every meat-eater wants to eat vegan food". You already put vegan-fries next to your animal-hamburger. Schrodinger's cat: the cat is both alive and dead at the same time (quantum-physics). You will not know if you want to be vegan until the box is opened. I did not know I wanted to be a vegan until I realized my diet was literally killing me. I didn't become vegan, I was already vegan ... I just stopped eating meat. -JoeJoe [/quote] No. I don't want to eat vegan food. I'm a primate and therefore, an omnivore, which is why Im able to consume and subsist on both animals and plants, unlike a snake or a deer. So I eat meat and I eat fruits and vegetables. I do not eat vegan food. Fried potatoes are not vegan food. Plants are not vegan food. By the way, what year was the word "vegan" invented? |
|
||
|
It's extremely common for restaurants to have, in the least, animal fats in their french fries. That's part of what makes them taste so good. If a restaurant doesn't specify a dish is vegan, it's almost certainly not. Fun fact: The famous flavor of McDonald's french fries originally came from being cooked in beef tallow. And I've done the vegan thing. Twice. I prefer omnivorous diets as that is far easier to hit our nutritional needs as a species, particularly since I have developed a fairly significant workout regime. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, magicfish wrote: No. I don't want to eat vegan food. I'm a primate and therefore, an omnivore, which is why Im able to consume and subsist on both animals and plants, unlike a snake or a deer. So I eat meat and I eat fruits and vegetables. I do not eat vegan food. Fried potatoes are not vegan food. Plants are not vegan food. By the way, what year was the word "vegan" invented? [/quote] Accoding to Wikipedia: Donald Watson coined the term vegan in 1944 when he co-founded the Vegan Society in England. At first he used it to mean "non-dairy vegetarian", but from 1951 the Society defined it as "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals". |
|
||
| Cool. Thanks. Just wanted to know at what point people started calling my side veggies "vegan food" |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: How about this: "every meat-eater wants to eat vegan food". You already put vegan-fries next to your animal-hamburger.[/quote] How about this: "your original premise has been shot down ingloriously, so you're trying to redefine it so that you can pretend that you were right all along"? I don't put vegan-fries next to my animal-hamburger. I'm an omnivore, so I eat meat and I eat plants. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Isn't it just as likely that one will be a meat eater once that box is open? THAT IS THE POINT. [/quote] They die. The hamburger does not sprout a new cow, but the seed grows a new tree. You won't know if you are alive or dead until you get sick and the doctor opens the box and let's you know: heart disease, kidney failure, liver problems, blah blah blah. Cancer can live inside you for decades without your knowledge. I was dying for twenty years and didn't know it ... luckily, I had been on a vegetarian for eight years and was able to survive it. Now that I know whats in the box, I only want to eat food that feds me - not food that feds my diseases. I have removed the vial of poison from the box that houses Schrodinger's cat. [quote]On Apr 30, 2019, S2000magician wrote: How about this: "your original premise has been shot down ingloriously, so you're trying to redefine it so that you can pretend that you were right all along"? [/quote] No. That statement does not change my original premise. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[b]Wimp Lo:[/b] [i]Ha! Face-to-foot style. How do you like it?[/i] [b]Chosen One:[/b] [i]I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: This is Earth.[/i] |
|
||
|
You can't add and subtract things at will in the experiment. My lord it is EXACTLY like talking to Wimp Lo! Yes! News flash here JoeJoe, EVERYONE is in the process of death. Perfect health is simply te slowest rate at which you can possibly die. You are still in that process even though you are vegan. Also everyone's body chemistry is different. You speak in childish absolutes. Grow up. Your premise has been completely shown to be false. Just admit it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 30, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Isn't it just as likely that one will be a meat eater once that box is open? THAT IS THE POINT. [/quote] They die. The hamburger does not sprout a new cow, but the seed grows a new tree. You won't know if you are alive or dead until you get sick and the doctor opens the box and let's you know: heart disease, kidney failure, liver problems, blah blah blah. Cancer can live inside you for decades without your knowledge. I was dying for twenty years and didn't know it ... luckily, I had been on a vegetarian for eight years and was able to survive it. Now that I know whats in the box, I only want to eat food that feds me - not food that feds my diseases. I have removed the vial of poison from the box that houses Schrodinger's cat. [quote]On Apr 30, 2019, S2000magician wrote: How about this: "your original premise has been shot down ingloriously, so you're trying to redefine it so that you can pretend that you were right all along"?[/quote] No. That statement does not change my original premise.[/quote] Which is still wrong. |
|
||
|
A seed is the offspring of a plant, however, a hamburger is not the offspring of a cow... That is like saying cutting out a piece of tree trunk will grow a new tree. Words have meaning. |
|
||
| Not for JoeJoe. |
|
||
| Not without a bull burger. |
|
||
|
[quote]On Apr 30, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: A seed is the offspring of a plant, however, a hamburger is not the offspring of a cow... That is like saying cutting out a piece of tree trunk will grow a new tree. [/quote] If you cut out a piece of tree, it can indeed grow into a new tree - the technique is called "cloning". I have pieces of trees soaking in water right now so they will grow roots and I can plant them. When a cow is killed, it's spirit (it's life) leaves it's body and you eat the dead flesh. When a tomato falls off the vine, it's spirit (it's life) stays in the seed and can grow. The word missing from the conversation is "Resurrection". -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Which is why I limit my meat-eating to lizard tails. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 30, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: A seed is the offspring of a plant, however, a hamburger is not the offspring of a cow... That is like saying cutting out a piece of tree trunk will grow a new tree. [/quote] If you cut out a piece of tree, it can indeed grow into a new tree - the technique is called "cloning". I have pieces of trees soaking in water right now so they will grow roots and I can plant them. When a cow is killed, it's spirit (it's life) leaves it's body and you eat the dead flesh. When a tomato falls off the vine, it's spirit (it's life) stays in the seed and can grow. The word missing from the conversation is "Resurrection". -JoeJoe [/quote] ... and if I take a DNA sample from the ground beef I can make a clone of the cow... if we are going to continue moving the goal post, that is. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: ... and if I take a DNA sample from the ground beef I can make a clone of the cow... if we are going to continue moving the goal post, that is. [/quote] And yet you still have to wonder why people behave like animals?? People that eat animals behave like animals. I'm not an animal ... I am a "human being". You should try it sometime, no where near as bad as some of the people here thinks it is. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| ... and; according to you, elephants are not mammals because they don't have fur... |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: I'm not an animal ... I am a "human being".[/quote] You keep saying this same stupid thing. Humans are animals. You can argue against it all you want, and you'll always be wrong. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: I'm not an animal ... I am a "human being".[/quote] You keep saying this same stupid thing. Humans are animals. You can argue against it all you want, and every time you do you'll be wrong. I note that you put [i]human being[/i] in quotes. That suggests doubt about its accuracy/appropriateness. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On Apr 30, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: A seed is the offspring of a plant, however, a hamburger is not the offspring of a cow... That is like saying cutting out a piece of tree trunk will grow a new tree. [/quote] If you cut out a piece of tree, it can indeed grow into a new tree - the technique is called "cloning". I have pieces of trees soaking in water right now so they will grow roots and I can plant them. When a cow is killed, it's spirit (it's life) leaves it's body and you eat the dead flesh. When a tomato falls off the vine, it's spirit (it's life) stays in the seed and can grow. The word missing from the conversation is "Resurrection". -JoeJoe [/quote] Incorrect. The classification of living things includes plants and animals. Both are alive, until they die naturally, or until they are killed and consumed. Sometimes I kill an animal to eat feed my family, sometimes I kill a vegetable to feed my family. If uneaten, both will decay and rot and will be consumed by scavengers. The fresher the better of course. I want to eat my fish right after the catch, and I want to eat my fruit right after the pluck. Both fresh kills. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: I'm not an animal ... I am a "human being".[/quote] I note that you put [i]human being[/i] in quotes. That suggests doubt about its accuracy/appropriateness. [/quote] In this case every word he types should be in quotes. |
|
||
| The unwashed masses today are using a lot of vegetable oil, as opposed to fat, to fry their food, which is causing obesity on a grand scale. Vegetable oil used to be expensive and so it was not used much before. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 1, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 1, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote: ... and if I take a DNA sample from the ground beef I can make a clone of the cow... if we are going to continue moving the goal post, that is. [/quote] And yet you still have to wonder why people behave like animals?? People that eat animals behave like animals. I'm not an animal ... I am a "human being". You should try it sometime, no where near as bad as some of the people here thinks it is. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] Humans are classified as animals. no matter what you want to believe. [youtube]irlkxki41PA[/youtube] |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Humans are classified as animals. no matter what you want to believe. [/quote] "white man" classified humans as animals; not every Europeans put down on paper has been correct, if that was the case you'd still believe the Earth was flat. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 2, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Humans are classified as animals. no matter what you want to believe.[/quote] "white man" classified humans as animals; not every Europeans put down on paper has been correct, if that was the case you'd still believe the Earth was flat.[/quote] The earth is flat? No European has ever said otherwise? What a load of garbage! Give it up, JoeJoe. You're wrong on this one. Every time you try to argue that you're right, you end up saying something else stupid. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 2, 2019, S2000magician wrote: [quote]On May 2, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: [quote]On May 2, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: Humans are classified as animals. no matter what you want to believe.[/quote] "white man" classified humans as animals; not every Europeans put down on paper has been correct, if that was the case you'd still believe the Earth was flat.[/quote] The earth is flat? No European has ever said otherwise? [/quote] That is not what I said - that is not even remotely similar to what I said. White man used to believe the Earth was flat, now they do not. If you believe you should eat meat because that is what your ancestors believed then you are undeniable wrong. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
And if you believe you are an animal because white man wrote that down in a book however many hundreds of years ago that you are an animal, well ... I feel sorry for you. I really do. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| So... what are you trying to say... Kill Whitey? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 2, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: And if you believe you are an animal because white man wrote that down in a book however many hundreds of years ago that you are an animal, well ... I feel sorry for you. I really do. -JoeJoe [/quote] So only whites believe humans are animals? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 2, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: And if you believe you are an animal because white man wrote that down in a book however many hundreds of years ago that you are an animal, well ... I feel sorry for you. I really do.[/quote] Some of us believe it merely because it's true. The color of the skin of someone who wrote it isn't relevant. Why is it to you? |
|
||
|
We all know what happened ... Europeans came here, killed the Indians and enslaved the Africans. You can't put this on me, my hands are clean. To me, enslaving a cow to give you milk is no different than enslaving an African to pick your cotton; cow racism. Enslaving a chicken to give you eggs is chicken racism. The is no blood on my hands. Hint: fruit is "juicy", steak is "bloody". Learn the difference. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Every time I think I have read the most stupid thing ever you manage to expand my horizon. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 3, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: We all know what happened ... Europeans came here, killed the Indians and enslaved the Africans.[/quote] We all know what happened: Africans enslaved other Africans long before the Europeans came along. [quote]On May 3, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: You can't put this on me, my hands are clean.[/quote] Nobody's trying to put this on you. You sound paranoid. Or guilty. |
|
||
| [i]My name is Dances Around Truth. I have nothing to say to you. You are not worth talking to. [/i] |
|
||
| I am a flexiterian but happy to go vegetarian. |
|
||
|
Joe joe wrote: "We all know what happened. Europeans came here, killed the Indians..." Quite the informed summation. Native peoples were killed, yes. Many by conquerors, many by warring tribes. Some tribes fought against some fought alongside. Some thrived and flourished. Many of us do indeed know what happened- but not all of us. |
|
||
|
Joe joe wrote: "We all know what happened. Europeans came here, killed the Indians and enslaved the Africans" Wait, there were Africans here? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 23, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not sure what you think those foods have to do what I'm talking about, none of them are "ancient". Blue Cheese and Balut didn't exist until A.D. while coconuts and corn are not "flesh" and are vegan foods to start with. And a banana smoothie is also vegan so I fail to see how that contradicts anything I posted?!? Doesn't sound like you understand what I'm talking about in any way shape or form. Do you know what "vegan" actually means??? And no ... animals do not taste good. If they tasted good, you would not need ketsup on them. If dead animal tasted good, you would eat them raw without seasoning (like you do vegetables). You have to flavor the dead animals to taste like vegetables or they do not taste good at all. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] JoeJoe, I apologize for not understanding you. My bad. You obviously didn't understand me, either; but that's OK--it's your thread. And yes, I know what what vegan means. Again, sorry. [/quote] I thought vegans did not drink milk. So how can a banana smoothy be vegan? |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 18, 2019, dave_matkin wrote: I thought vegans did not drink milk. So how can a banana smoothy be vegan? [/quote] Two bananas, tablespoon coco powder with equal part sugar to sweeten, a few coffee beans, add water and blend. There are vegan cake icings I also use instead of coco and sugar, they come out creamier with cake icing. Can add whatever fruit I've got laying around, a strawberry lemon orange ... it all tastes good when blended together. I don't need a recipe, I just need fruit. :) -JoeJoe |
|
||
| And a book about Native American interaction with European settlers. |
|
||
| I have read Crow Killer - The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson |
|
||
| [youtube]SKxr2PJ06Y4[/youtube] |
|
||
|
And a book about whether the Native Americans Were in the Americas before Africans. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 18, 2019, dave_matkin wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote: [quote]On May 23, 2018, JoeJoe wrote: Not sure what you think those foods have to do what I'm talking about, none of them are "ancient". Blue Cheese and Balut didn't exist until A.D. while coconuts and corn are not "flesh" and are vegan foods to start with. And a banana smoothie is also vegan so I fail to see how that contradicts anything I posted?!? Doesn't sound like you understand what I'm talking about in any way shape or form. Do you know what "vegan" actually means??? And no ... animals do not taste good. If they tasted good, you would not need ketsup on them. If dead animal tasted good, you would eat them raw without seasoning (like you do vegetables). You have to flavor the dead animals to taste like vegetables or they do not taste good at all. :) -JoeJoe [/quote] JoeJoe, I apologize for not understanding you. My bad. You obviously didn't understand me, either; but that's OK--it's your thread. And yes, I know what what vegan means. Again, sorry. [/quote] I thought vegans did not drink milk. So how can a banana smoothy be vegan? [/quote] Almond milk...soy milk... |
|
||
|
Good to hear from you Lobo and we wish you and your tribe well. Once upon a time cows were coconuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qINiB3ndGmU |
|
||
|
Joe Joe wrote, "To me, enslaving a cow to give you milk is no different than enslaving an African to pick your cotton;" Don't ever, if you value your life, say this to an African. I may think every word you speak is beyond ridiculous, but I would never want to see you harmed. |
|
||
| Having consequences for stupidity is one way to learn. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 22, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Having consequences for stupidity is one way to learn. [/quote] It is unfortunate that warning labels are put on so many things... https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/funny-warning-labels/ |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 21, 2019, tommy wrote: Good to hear from you Lobo and we wish you and your tribe well. Once upon a time cows were coconuts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qINiB3ndGmU [/quote] Thanks, Tommy...I hope you're doing well. |
|
||
| This thread makes me thirsty for a tall glass of enslaved-bovine juice. |
|
||
|
Two things; I'm watching a live-stream of Tim Tracker, who is walking through the Star Wars land in Disneyland. They sell "blue milk," and "green milk," both of which are plant-based juices. Tim says the "blue milk" tastes like "potpourri," (I'm not certain what "potpourri" tastes like.) And the "green milk" tastes like a milk shake made of Fruity Pebbles! The second thing is, I saw a news item that KFC is working on a plant based fried chicken! But they're not ready to test. (Somebody just asked Tim Tracker on the live feed if he'd tried the "vegan meatloaf." He said he didn't know there was such a thing!) |
|
||
| The Vegans are stakeholders, rather than customers. The Vegans do not buy stuff but invest in notions. The Vegan will invest in a veg burger not because he is hungry but because he wants to save animals. The Vegans, therefore, are not capitalists, they are communists. The Vegans embrace the Marxist principle, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," and apply it not just to humans but also to animals. Animal rights, class warfare, you see? |
|
||
| Tommy, sometimes when I read your word salad, I have to ask, "Where's the beef?" |
|
||
|
:) Corned beef has nothing to do with corn. |
|
||
| Well it uses "corns" of salt. That is about as much as it has to do with corn. |
|
||
|
I have a serious question for ethics based vegans and vegetarians that I'm sure they hear all the time. What is the cut-off point for an "animal" to have rights? I know it extends to the larger and smarter and more adorable species, but I don't know how far down the sentient ladder it applies. Where do birds, fish and insects fit on the continuum? And why? Is it a matter of brain-size, intelligence or self-awareness? |
|
||
|
It's a matter of cuteness, intelligence, or whatever arbitrary attributes they decide to be desirable enough to not kill. Most animals they just murder. Mostly by destroying habitat for their new homes, others cuz they're ugly or of diminutive size or infestations. |
|
||
| Although JoeJoe espouses his all life has rights theory he admits to killing and eating insects. Seems hypocritical to me. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, Mr Salk wrote: I have a serious question for ethics based vegans and vegetarians that I'm sure they hear all the time. What is the cut-off point for an "animal" to have rights? I know it extends to the larger and smarter and more adorable species, but I don't know how far down the sentient ladder it applies. Where do birds, fish and insects fit on the continuum? And why? Is it a matter of brain-size, intelligence or self-awareness? [/quote] *Everyone* has a dietary line they won't cross--even meat eaters. All such lines are arguably arbitrary. You do what you feel is right for you. Humans have done a lot of murdering of other species for a long long time. There are lots of ways to come to terms with that fact. But most of us, meat-eaters and vegans, do indeed have to have some mechanism to come to terms with that. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Although JoeJoe espouses his all life has rights theory he admits to killing and eating insects. Seems hypocritical to me. [/quote] I'm not a fan of JoeJoe's dogmatism on the subject, but I don't think he's hypocritical. You do what you can do. If a person gives a thousand dollars to a charity s/he believes in, it's not hypocritical because s/he didn't give two thousand. As humans we have limitations. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, magicfish wrote: Most animals they just murder. Mostly by destroying habitat for their new homes, others cuz they're ugly or of diminutive size or infestations. [/quote] Well, I guess this is bait, so I guess this pescatarian will bite. Vegetarians as a class are destroying animal habitats for their new homes? Do tell. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, landmark wrote: [quote]On May 31, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote: Although JoeJoe espouses his all life has rights theory he admits to killing and eating insects. Seems hypocritical to me. [/quote] I'm not a fan of JoeJoe's dogmatism on the subject, but I don't think he's hypocritical. You do what you can do. If a person gives a thousand dollars to a charity s/he believes in, it's not hypocritical because s/he didn't give two thousand. As humans we have limitations. [/quote] Holding others to ridiculous judgemental standards while making excuses for your own behavior is a hypocritical action. I don't care what air freshener you want to try to hang on it. |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, landmark wrote: [quote]On May 31, 2019, magicfish wrote: Most animals they just murder. Mostly by destroying habitat for their new homes, others cuz they're ugly or of diminutive size or infestations. [/quote] Well, I guess this is bait, so I guess this pescatarian will bite. Vegetarians as a class are destroying animal habitats for their new homes? Do tell. [/quote] I would also point out that "murder" is a legal term. You may dislike the killing of animals, but it's simply not murder. |
|
||
|
It's a legal term but also a non-legal one. See for example definition 2, for the verb: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, ed rhodes wrote: [quote]On May 31, 2019, landmark wrote: [quote]On May 31, 2019, magicfish wrote: Most animals they just murder. Mostly by destroying habitat for their new homes, others cuz they're ugly or of diminutive size or infestations. [/quote] Well, I guess this is bait, so I guess this pescatarian will bite. Vegetarians as a class are destroying animal habitats for their new homes? Do tell. [/quote] I would also point out that "murder" is a legal term. You may dislike the killing of animals, but it's simply not murder. [/quote] I don't dislike the killing of animals. |
|
||
| Maurice Strong at the Rio Earth Summit was going on about the rights of all the animals, insects and trees etcetera when someone asked about the rights of humans and Strong angrily replied: "Well when we're finished you'll wish you had the rights of a tree." The Rio charter was written by the Rockefeller and it is a new religion they said. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), a program of the United Nations, coordinates the organization's environmental activities and assists developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and practices. It was founded by Maurice Strong, its first director. A report from UNEP declared that a shift towards a vegan diet was needed to save the world from hunger, fuel shortages. The Vegan craze is simply a result of mass indoctrination. They are indoctrinated with a list of things. The indoctrinated have no choice and must agree with everything on the list. It is a waste of time arguing with the indoctrinated. All they do is preach to get others to join their cult. Just look at the title: "Every meat eater wants to be a vegan and I can prove it to you". |
|
||
|
And we're nice enough to not simply reply: "Okay, dive into the shark tank and demonstrate that a shark prefers veggies to fish. But if you want to start on this pod of Orca Whales that's okay too". The larger problem is food distribution. Also, some who rule prefer to have their masses worried about having food to risking them questioning the nature of their local governments. You can't always trust that everyone will be so busy watching a soap opera on TV or posting about some internet meme to organize. You'd think the costs in potable water would affect our food prices. Instead we have a subsidized market for milk, isles of dairy and beef products, and fuss over cutting the crust off our sandwiches. ?? <- what's up with that. |
|
||
|
Like Killer whales, individual populations often specialize in particular types of prey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m55HKChS2zk |
|
||
|
@Salk, the matter of animal rights (and responsibilities) and our ethical treatment of animals may be distinct. On the intelligence or self awareness measures... there's a cute video of a cat noticing its own ears in a mirror and testing that identification by kicking its ear as it watches the image. So it can test its kinesthetic (action) and sensation (feeling the ear with both ear and foot) against its visual. The item folks would want to [i]avoid[/i] testing is whether an animal would use its reflection as part of a process to get something it wanted. If it has a dot on its forehead there will be food behind the first door. ;) ;) wait and see on that one folks. :D |
|
||
|
[quote]On May 31, 2019, Mr Salk wrote: I have a serious question for ethics based vegans and vegetarians that I'm sure they hear all the time. What is the cut-off point for an "animal" to have rights? I know it extends to the larger and smarter and more adorable species, but I don't know how far down the sentient ladder it applies. Where do birds, fish and insects fit on the continuum? And why? Is it a matter of brain-size, intelligence or self-awareness? [/quote] All life is sacred. Have you ever watched Seven Years in Tibet?? True story about two guys that get trapped on the Tibetan mountain during the world war, and they end up making friends with the Dali Lama who wanted them to build a movie theater in the village for his people ... which they do. And the villagers got all upset because they were killing worms in the construction process. On the top of a mountain like that, you realize how sacred life is - if you see a flower bloom, you don't step on it because you are aware that you may never see another one bloom there again. They began sifting the dirt to ensure no worms were injured while digging the posts for the movie theater. What exactly do you want to kill and why?? A fish has the right to swim in the river, a bird has a right to fly in the sky, a tree has the right to grow it's branches. We are not here to kill the Earth, we are here to take care of it. Everything has a reason to be here, even if we don't know or understand what it's reason is. -JoeJoe |
|
||
| Do you kill and eat insects JoeJoe? |
|
||
|
Do I kill and eat insects?? No ... as I already explained, I eat them while they are still alive. When the lion eats it's prey, it is still breathing. -JoeJoe |
|
||
|
Sorry lions kill and eat prey. OOPS. So do you. So in other words JoeJoe not ALL life is sacred huh? |
|
||
|
[quote]On Jun 2, 2019, JoeJoe wrote: What exactly do you want to kill and why?? A fish has the right to swim in the river, a bird has a right to fly in the sky, a tree has the right to grow it's branches. We are not here to kill the Earth, we are here to take care of it. Everything has a reason to be here, even if we don't know or understand what it's reason is. -JoeJoe [/quote] I don't want to yell GOTCHA or accuse you of hypocrisy. We all make varying moral decisions about our diets and impact. Even Texans don't eat dog or horse. But I don't understand the claim of rights to life and liberty for creatures and plants in a life-cycle based on consumption. Sometimes consumption IS the reason. |