our village idiot wrote: >>Most animals will suffer TREMENDOUSLY as long as there's predation, >>whether humans prey or not. I hope it gives you "-extreme-" pleasure to >>know baby lions are sleeping with full bellies because their mothers >>caused other animals to suffer.
> Suffering UNECESSARILLY.
Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet. It may not be a part of the existence BENEATH the planet, so I can appreciate your inner earth delusions.
>>>all people have the space and resources to live with >>>abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the >>>ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
>>Thriving requires sacrifice and suffering, you nitwit.
> It also means living and pleasure, butthead.
Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure.
>>>The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made >>>up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all >>>of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
>>Most people also died before age 50.
> Your evidence for that?
I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than "until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't mention any of the above -- I wonder why.
> Ha ha ha, we'll have to call this day of pinocchio, you lying dutch > crap, I bet you couldn't even find the start page!!
Couldn't find the start page eh Pete?
---------------
Congratulations, Dutch! Your IQ score is 131
This number is the result of a formula based on how many questions you answered correctly on Emode's Ultimate IQ test. Your IQ score is scientifically accurate; to read more about the science behind our IQ test, click here.
During the test, you answered four different types of questions - mathematical, visual-spatial, linguistic and logical. We analyzed how you did on each of those questions which reveals how your brain uniquely works.
We also compared your answers with others who have taken the test, and according to the sorts of questions you got correct, we can tell your Intellectual Type is Visual Mathematician.
This means you are gifted at spotting patterns - both in pictures and in numbers. These talents combined with your overall high intelligence make you good at understanding the big picture, which is why people trust your instincts and turn to you for direction - especially in the workplace. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results.
"usual suspect" <abovegro...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F11AF1F.2010400@earth.man... > our village idiot wrote: > >>Most animals will suffer TREMENDOUSLY as long as there's predation, > >>whether humans prey or not. I hope it gives you "-extreme-" pleasure to > >>know baby lions are sleeping with full bellies because their mothers > >>caused other animals to suffer.
> > Suffering UNECESSARILLY.
> Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet.
That so? Let's cut your balls off without anaesthesia then.
> >>>all people have the space and resources to live with > >>>abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the > >>>ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
> >>Thriving requires sacrifice and suffering, you nitwit.
> > It also means living and pleasure, butthead.
> Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of > eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure.
Animals are not a proper food for humans. Illness results, suffering results. Animals are not here for our pleasure.
> >>>The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made > >>>up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all > >>>of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
> >>Most people also died before age 50.
> > Your evidence for that?
> I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than > "until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the > longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of > nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't > mention any of the above -- I wonder why.
I don't care what you stand by. Cite some evidence yourself for a change.
>> Ha ha ha, we'll have to call this day of pinocchio, you lying dutch >> crap, I bet you couldn't even find the start page!!
>Couldn't find the start page eh Pete?
Who's pete?
>---------------
>Congratulations, Dutch! >Your IQ score is 131
Not quite the same as the email you sent me by mistake.
Congratulations, Dutch! Your IQ score is 13
You are the lowest, piss poor example we have ever seen here of a breast feeding adult. In fact there was only one person in history who had a lower score, and that was J Ball, do you know him?
If you bother this scientific website with your trivial questions again, we'll have security throw you out.
--
So, you dont like reasoned, well thought out, civil debate?
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > > news:berkic$qke$1@kermit.esat.net... > > > "James Curts" <jamescu...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:CVXPa.45174$ye4.35219@sccrnsc01... > > > <..> > > > > I have to ask: Who are you trying to put down, who put you up to this > > and > > > > what do you stand to gain by promoting this "unique" idea?
> > > James, I am not trying to put ANYONE down.
> > > NOBODY but myself determines my actions.
> > > I personally stand to gain NOTHING, but -extreme- > > > pleasure in knowing that animals aren't suffering, that > > > all people have the space and resources to live with > > > abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the > > > ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
> > > The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made > > > up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all > > > of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
> > > Hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction. :)
> > > <..>
> > Lady, you are pissin' against a stiff wind. So before getting your panties > > an a wad why not find a sympathetic and less educated audience for you earth > > shaking repetitious blather. One would think you may have caught on to the > > fact this off kilter line of malarkey hasn't impressed thinking people at > > any time in near recorded history.
> > You spend an inordinate amount of time fine tuning your recitals just to > > amuse folks who are not receptive to any part of it. This is an agricultural > > group and most who frequent it are financially and duty bound to support the > > products they raise.
> > "Most of the rhetoric >snip< will sooner or later point at an industry or > > group which has in some way > > come into disfavor with some someone who wants to make a racket"
> > And that is where you come in. These folks are of much stronger metal than > > your type and will not be swayed the least from what they believe is right. > > From this point of view you are just a pain in the ass.
> > The further you pursue this the more ridiculous you appear. Your cut and > > paste items somewhat belie your claim of "NOBODY but myself determines my > > actions." > > You come across on this group as a minion of someone else and not wound too > > tightly either. Perhaps an enlistment in sci.occult would be more gratifying
> > If you are indeed determining your own actions as you claim there is > > probably a chance to salvage something from your efforts. A start would be > > to enroll in an educational course which deals in nutrition and does not > > enter into the mythology and heresy aspects of an interesting topic. Another > > aspect of learning is to avoid developing relationships with the educators > > in either a mental, physical or spiritual nature which cloud the real > > lesson. You have, on the other hand, developed a love affair with a topic, > > and perhaps its perpetrators, whose merits are dubious at best.
> > Thank you
> > James Curts
> Well, you too are entitled to your opinion, ignorant as it may be.
> Good day. :).
My beliefs are based on considerably more than opinion or cutting and pasting a third party evocation of ambiguous facts.
My business and chosen work is to provide wholesome and healthy food so others may share a better quality dinner. This is directed primarily toward helping the disadvantaged through maintaining a continuing and successful business dedicated to lessoning nutritional deprivation. The choice of foods produced in part is based on those which will supplement local, ethnic or natural food staples. This in itself is a lesson in nutrition and human needs.
One small side road to study is the success of the human race in every environment it has been a part of.
Also, just as a friendly gesture, I would think you would want to loosen the tethers your "benefactor " has on your mind set and broaden your exposure to learning.
> My beliefs are based on considerably more than opinion or cutting and > pasting a third party evocation of ambiguous facts.
It's called evidence.
> My business and chosen work is to provide wholesome and healthy food so > others may share a better quality dinner.
You mean 'livestock', right?
> This is directed primarily toward > helping the disadvantaged through maintaining a continuing and successful > business dedicated to lessoning nutritional deprivation. The choice of > foods produced in part is based on those which will supplement local, ethnic > or natural food staples. This in itself is a lesson in nutrition and human > needs.
You raise livestock organically, or what?
> One small side road to study is the success of the human race in every > environment it has been a part of.
By 'success' you are no doubt referring to humans' continued survival, but that doesn't necessarily imply quality of life, nor sustainable practices.
> Also, just as a friendly gesture, I would think you would want to loosen > the tethers your "benefactor " has on your mind set and broaden your > exposure to learning.
>> >> You haven't asked a question; you've merely asserted that others hold >> >> beliefs and then attacked your presumptive answers.
>> >I asked several questions but you keep snipping >> >them away and refuse to answer them. One of >> >the questions in the post prior to this was," Why >> >do insist, without any evidence, that it is the vegan >> >who holds a weird belief while at the same time >> >confessing to your own beliefs that compel you >> >to eat meat by way of paying homage to your >> >imagined Goddess?
>> There are many problems w/ your compound question. First, I have >> plenty of evidence that ar/evs hold many mistaken religious beliefs.
>You have no evidence of these supposed beliefs >at all. If you had, you would've produce it. You >must now present what evidence you claim to >have or retract your claim.
I'll do no such thing. Unlike, I don't deny the truth.
>You have admitted you do, and said you'll stand >by your confession. Here's the proof, again: >[start me] >> > You believe that your understanding >> > of this Goddess you metaphorically call 'Ma Nature' >> > compels you pay homage to 'her' by eating meat, >> > and your own words are crystal clear in showing >> > this belief; >> > "Show Her a little more respect and have a hamburger >> > fer cryin' out loud." >> > Swamp. Date: 2003-06-29
>> ok, I'll stand by that. >[end]
>How much more proof do I need to show you're >a liar, bog?
You can quote that till yer blue in the face. It does nothing to support your ridiculous argument.
>> Third, I don't believe in or pay homage to goddesses,
>You're lying, and here's the proof, again, in your >own words. >[start me] >> > You believe that your understanding >> > of this Goddess you metaphorically call 'Ma Nature' >> > compels you pay homage to 'her' by eating meat, >> > and your own words are crystal clear in showing >> > this belief; >> > "Show Her a little more respect and have a hamburger >> > fer cryin' out loud." >> > Swamp. Date: 2003-06-29
>> ok, I'll stand by that. >[end]
>You can't get away from this confession, bog, so it's >useless to deny you're lying.
That only proves your inability to understand metaphors.
>> tho if I saw Kate >> Beckinsale in a bar I'd buy her a drink.
>> So you see, it's impossible to answer the question as asked.
>The only reason you're having problems answering >my questions is because you're trying desperately >trying to distance yourself from your earlier >confessions. You have no option but to keep your >promise and "stand by that" else you'll be seen as >a bigger liar than you look already. You're stuck >with them. I'll make sure of that.
>> Perhaps if you were to rephrase it as a genuine >> question I could accomodate you.
>> >Another question which remain unanswered and >> >merely snipped away without comment was, >> >"Aren't you aware that your attack on vegans >> >for supposedly holding a religious belief >> >themselves makes you appear rather hypocritical >> >while following diet based on ritual sacrifice?
>> Same problems as the first question. I don't attack ar/evs for their >> religious beliefs; I attack their denial of them.
>They deny holding them, and they are perfectly >able to do so seeing as they've never confessed >to holding any.
It doesn't matter whether they admit to them or not. They hold them regardless.
>You, though, have confessed to >yours AND said you'll stand by them. Being that >you now try to deny ever having them, I'm going >to use the approach you use against the vegan >and attack you remorsely for denying them too.
Attack me "remorsely?" What's that supposed to mean?
>I have the advantage.
If all you have is my alleged belief in a metaphorical "goddess" you have zippo.
>Your attack against the >vegan's denial of an irrational belief is without >any foundation seeing as they haven't expressed >one. You merely insist they do without any >evidence to back your claim. I, on the other >hand, have your full confession stating you'll >stand by your irrational belief in a Goddess >which compels you to pay homage to it by >eating meat.
You still have zippo except irrational, pseudo-religious beliefs.
>> The rest of your >> leading (unpermitted in formal debate) question I addressed above.
>> >> If your position is *that* weak
>> >My position and argument is very strong, and >> >it has revealed your belief in a supernatural >> >Goddess that compels you to pay homage to >> > it by eating meat as a sort of half-witted sacrifice. >> >It has also made you admit that the meatarian >> >arguments you promote are lies, and that my >> >vegan arguments are truthful.
>> Your argument rides on false assumptions.
>I've got your own written admission, so they >aren't assumptions at all. Here they are;
>You do believe in a supernatural intelligence >which has been around for a long time: > "I *know* She's smarter than we are. She's been >around a *lot* longer."
>That 'it' has an intelligence greater than anyone's, >and is wise. >"And yes, She's smarter, or technically, wiser, than >I am. Anyone who claims to be wiser than She is a fool, >"meatarian" or not."
> That 'it' should be paid homage by the eating >of meat. >"Show Her a little more respect and have a hamburger fer >cryin' out loud."
>The reason for this is because 'it' doesn't like my vegan >diet. >"She's merely the result of unnumerable random >events, and She doesn't like your diet."
>And so, as a direct result from these beliefs you want >farm animals to be born because 'it' is smarter >than you are. >"I want them to be born because Ma Nature is smarter >than I am."
>And also, we have this admission too (below) >where you said you'll stand by your stated belief >in a Goddess that compels you to eat meat.
>[start me] >> > You believe that your understanding >> > of this Goddess you metaphorically call 'Ma Nature' >> > compels you pay homage to 'her' by eating meat, >> > and your own words are crystal clear in showing >> > this belief; >> > "Show Her a little more respect and have a hamburger >> > fer cryin' out loud." >> > Swamp. Date: 2003-06-29
>> ok, I'll stand by that. >[end]
>My argument isn't based on assumption. It's >based on your quotes and confessions. You >can't escape what you wrote. I'll see to that.
Your argument is based on your inability to understand sarcasm or metaphors.
>> Once you add in the facts >> that I haven't attacked vegans for their beliefs but for their >> denials, and that I don't believe in supernatural Goddesses,
>You have confessed your beliefs in it and said >you'll "stand by that." The evidence is undeniable.
>> your "argument" crumbles.
>You haven't got a clue. I'm going to kick your >arse.
>> >[start Derek] >> >> > Priceless! In all this I've exposed you as a >> >> > meatarian holding a daft religious belief and >> >> > a liar all in one.
>> >> [Swamp] >> >> Fine, but this "meatarian liar's" arguments make >> >> more sense than your "truthful veg*n" ones >> >> regardless of how you play it, and *that's* why >> >> you're stuck. >> >[end] >> >Date 9th July 2003
>> >After that surprise confession I asked, "Now that >> >you've confessed to being a "meatarian liar", what >> >other meatarian lies do you consider make more >> >sense that the "truthful vegan ones"?
>> You, my friend, have severe sarcasm and metaphor impediments, which >> are perhaps why you're the only one who ridiculously argues that I >> believe Ma Nature anything more than a figure of speech. However, I >> shall continue to invoke Her Name because it annoys you.
>You haven't invoked her name since I started >clobbering you over the head with 'her'. In fact >you've been trying to distance yourself from >'her' as far as you can, so don't give any of that >kind of bullshit, bog.
Bullshit is Ma Nature's doing, too. You seem to have been heavily blessed by Her in this department.
>> >You didn't answer that either, so why do you >> >lie by writing, "You haven't asked a question", >> >bog?
>> You have yet to ask a valid question in this thread.
>You wrote, "You haven't asked a question.", but >you're now moving the goalposts to try escaping >the fact that you lied by adding the term "valid" in >your defence.
Whatever. You haven't asked a question, period.
>> You're simply making assertions
>The quotes are all yours, bog. I'm not simply >asserting you wrote those confessions; I'm >stating it as fact, and I have the proof to back >it up.
You should see a doctor about your little impairment. You're the only one who thinks he has "proof" of anything. Being alone in one's belief generally indicates one is mistaken. Your case is no exception.
>> and sticking question marks at the end of them, >> which is rather poor form if you ask me, and indicates desperation >> whether you ask me or not.
>> Perhaps, when you're ready to abandon your hopeless position,
>You're an idiot if you think I'm going to abandon >my attack on your confessed irrational beliefs, bog.
I'm an idiot to keep discussing this nonsense w/ you, that's for sure.
>[snipped diversion]
Uh-huh, figured you'd snip something that problematic for you. Well, this Ma Nature stuff has become boring. If you're unwilling to discuss anything more challenging you're welcome to last word.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:35:52 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made >up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all >of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
A primary part of it, yes. Meat consumption goes back 65 million years or so. Livestock domestication began about 15,000 years ago. The only thing that's very recent is an intentionally meatless diet.
our village idiot wrote: >>Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet.
> That so? Let's cut your balls off without anaesthesia then.
Another vegan misanthrope lashing out with violence. Are you trying to fatten me for slaughter? That's one reason why bulls are castrated; it's also normally done in a painless fashion.
>>Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of >>eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure.
> Animals are not a proper food for humans.
Yes they are.
> Illness results,
Illness results from eating certain plants immediately. Illness and death occur regardless of diet at some point in life.
> suffering results.
Suffering results for all animals whether they're eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many other predators are less humane than humans.
> Animals are not here for our pleasure.
Sure they are.
>>I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than >>"until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the >>longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of >>nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't >>mention any of the above -- I wonder why.
> I don't care what you stand by. Cite some evidence yourself for a change.
Accepting the premise that changes in longevity have occurred over the course of human evolution, we use a resampling approach to examine the nature of that change, with particular interest in whether there is a pattern of gradual change, or if there is a significant increase in longevity with the emergence of Homo erectus. Our sample consists of ages at death derived from the literature and includes over 150 specimens ranging from the late Miocene to the Upper Pleistocene. These were plotted against time using a resampling method that avoids the problems of time dependence and the interpretation of slope that are inherent in linear regressions. To avoid error introduced by dates, we considered the data in 100,000 and 50,000 year intervals and focused on increments of change (D) between individual observations in adjacent intervals. Random resampling with replacement was done an equal number of times for each increment generating a distribution for each resampling run as well as a total distribution of D. These distributions suggest no significant change in longevity with the emergence of Homo erectus; RATHER, SUCH CHANGE OCCURS LATER IN HUMAN EVOLUTION. [my emphasis]
I also found the following chart, though I haven't had time to investigate the site. The information on it tends to agree with what I remembered from my biology and anthropology courses.
Pan troglodytes: Longevity about 40 years. Australopithecus africanus: Longevity 40 years maximum. Homo erectus: Greater longevity 52 years. Homo sapiens: Longevity 66 years.
our village idiot wrote: >>My beliefs are based on considerably more than opinion or cutting and >>pasting a third party evocation of ambiguous facts.
> It's called evidence.
No, it's called either pseudo-science or fantasy. The former comes from sites like egolocos while the latter comes from Adama of Telos via her channelers.
>> >> You needn't go that far; Ostrich steaks, burgers and (IIRC) sausages >are >> >> available, twice a month, at Birmingham's "Farmers' Market".
>> >> The burgers are also available there, hot, on a bap, with onions. >> >> There's always a queue for them. >> >> -- >> >to right, sounds good
>> >Jim Webster
>> Ostrich meat is available in Langwathby near Penrith if you are tempted >> Jim. >> --
>I keep meaning to go and have a look sometime
>Westmoreland show normally has a cracking local foods tent and I've tried >some interesting things there
>Jim Webster >> Malcolm Kane
Unfortunately I will not be able to make the Westmorland - Sue will be there with a stand but I will have to work. A lot of the food stands at local shows have good variety have you come across Made in Cumbria - Food from the Fells"? -- Malcolm Kane
What ever you are promoting is based simply on someone's conjecture and a newly learned ability to cut and paste to a newsgroup. Most of the material you reproduce here has been discared long ago by folks who wish to step over the dogma and move forward in a more learned manner.
> You mean 'livestock', right?
No, I do not mean livestock although some byproducts are used by the livestock industry to promote the production of healthy meat products
> You raise livestock organically, or what?
I suppose I would have to say "or what" as I do not raise livestock organically or inorganically. I raise fresh produce to supplement local, ethnic and natural foods in a given area.
> By 'success' you are no doubt referring to humans' continued survival, > but that doesn't necessarily imply quality of life, nor >sustainable
practices.
Why yes, that is what I referred to and without a doubt our quality of life, as does that of those we can influence through aid and teaching, steadily improves as time progresses. And remember, this is by eating the local, ethnic and natural foods around us.
> > Also, just as a friendly gesture, I would think you would want to loosen > > the tethers your "benefactor " has on your mind set and broaden your > > exposure to learning. > What 'benefactor'?
Only you know, and hopefuly so, who is rattling your chain. You seem to have a basic education and the rudimentary tools and accumen to pursue a topic and promote it so why not introduce something which is not transparently simplistic in structure and source and move on to things of interest to this group.
Once off politics and mythology these are great folks and open to sharing of productive thoughts, ideas and solutions. You offer nothing which fits into this very broad spectrum of interest and only bring an evangelistic discord to a rather laid back online agricultural community. I am not certain of your origins but know you are upstaged in grand manner by most of these farm types who display a better than average education and understanding of the world today.
One of the mystifying evolutionary traits displayed by man today is that they are now so healthy there is no explanation for the continued death rate.
In the off instance that you wish to continue on this line of rhetoric there are a number of cultist organizations which would welcome you with open arms.
> >Westmoreland show normally has a cracking local foods tent and I've tried > >some interesting things there
> >Jim Webster > >> Malcolm Kane
> Unfortunately I will not be able to make the Westmorland - Sue will be > there with a stand but I will have to work. A lot of the food stands at > local shows have good variety have you come across Made in Cumbria - > Food from the Fells"?
Was it there last year, I think I remember it. Also down here we have the Holker saltmarsh lamb which is selling well and earning a small premium. They have the surviving fat lady helping to push it which helps a lot.
> <..> > > I have to ask: Who are you trying to put down, who put you up to this and > > what do you stand to gain by promoting this "unique" idea?
> James, I am not trying to put ANYONE down.
> NOBODY but myself determines my actions.
> I personally stand to gain NOTHING, but -extreme- > pleasure in knowing that animals aren't suffering, that > all people have the space and resources to live with > abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the > ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
=========================== What a hoot!! You really are too much, dolt. You are killing animals by being on usenet, stupid. Unnecessary death and suffering. Their blood is on your hands for nothing more than your entertainment. guess you like all that blood, eh? You go to bullfights to, do you?
> The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made > up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all > of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
> Hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction. :)
> > our village idiot wrote: > > >>Most animals will suffer TREMENDOUSLY as long as there's predation, > > >>whether humans prey or not. I hope it gives you "-extreme-" pleasure to > > >>know baby lions are sleeping with full bellies because their mothers > > >>caused other animals to suffer.
> > > Suffering UNECESSARILLY.
> > Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet.
> That so? Let's cut your balls off without anaesthesia then.
> > >>>all people have the space and resources to live with > > >>>abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the > > >>>ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
> > >>Thriving requires sacrifice and suffering, you nitwit.
> > > It also means living and pleasure, butthead.
> > Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of > > eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure.
> Animals are not a proper food for humans. Illness results, > suffering results. Animals are not here for our pleasure.
===================== really? then why do you continue to post your inane spew and hatred? animals are dying unnecessarily for nothing more than your entertainment.
> > >>>The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made > > >>>up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all > > >>>of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
> > >>Most people also died before age 50.
> > > Your evidence for that?
> > I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than > > "until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the > > longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of > > nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't > > mention any of the above -- I wonder why.
> I don't care what you stand by. Cite some evidence yourself for a change.
>>>I personally stand to gain NOTHING, but -extreme- >>>pleasure in knowing that animals aren't suffering,
Animals suffer for your food. They suffer enormously.
>>Most animals will suffer TREMENDOUSLY as long as there's predation, >>whether humans prey or not. I hope it gives you "-extreme-" pleasure to >>know baby lions are sleeping with full bellies because their mothers >>caused other animals to suffer.
> Suffering UNECESSARILLY.
How ELSE do you propose lions eat, you stupid skank?
>>>all people have the space and resources to live with >>>abundance; enjoying health and vitality, and that the >>>ecosphere is recovering well, all wild species thriving.
>>Thriving requires sacrifice and suffering, you nitwit.
> It also means living and pleasure, butthead.
No. That's your religious projection.
>>>The idea is hardly unique. Plant foods have always made >>>up a primary part of humans' diet, even all or nearly all >>>of it, in many cultures around the globe until very recently.
>>Most people also died before age 50.
> Your evidence for that?
The average historical lifespans in various parts of the world are well known.
>>>Hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction. :)
>>When was the last time you satisfied a man? How much did it cost him?
Heh heh heh...not more than 5 quid. She's cheap as they get.
> "Malcolm Kane" <malc...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:JeoV1HCckEE$Ewls@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk... > > In message <bep39f$dp...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster > > <J...@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
> > >> You needn't go that far; Ostrich steaks, burgers and (IIRC) sausages > are > > >> available, twice a month, at Birmingham's "Farmers' Market".
> > >> The burgers are also available there, hot, on a bap, with onions. > > >> There's always a queue for them. > > >> -- > > >to right, sounds good
> > >Jim Webster
> > Ostrich meat is available in Langwathby near Penrith if you are tempted > > Jim. > > --
> I keep meaning to go and have a look sometime
> Westmoreland show normally has a cracking local foods tent and I've tried > some interesting things there
At our local famers market, the ostrich stall also sells ostrich eggs. Think of the omelette one of them would make!
> > > No. If babies 'of course' eat worms, why not eat them as adults?
> > Because far more palatable food is easily available?
> Because human babies aren't the least bit interested in eating > worms in the first place?
I think human babies are interested in eating, when hungry, and will shove about anything nearby in their mouths - once - to test if it is edible and whether they like it.
> > > If humans were _true_ flesh-eaters virtually *no one* would have any > > > problem with raw meat. We'd _all_ find the smell and sight of bloody > > > raw flesh highly appetizing, even salivate when around cows and pigs.
> > Is there any single foodstuff which would pass the universal 'highly > > appetising' test?
> Of course. Many.
I can't think of any which would, even amongst the relatively small sample of my immediate family, let alone the entire human race. Could you suggest a few examples of foods found universally 'highly appetising', please?
> > > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > > > news:bek0rd$iml$1@kermit.esat.net... > > > > "Malcolm Kane" <malc...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:U74C8jAHQRC$EwEE@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk... > > > > > In message <beacri$it...@kermit.esat.net>, pearl > <t...@signguestbook.ie> > > > > > writes > > > > > >"usual suspect" <abovegro...@earth.man> wrote in message > > > > > >news:3F08A860.1070908@earth.man... > > > > > >> pearl wrote: > > > > > ><...> > > > <snip>
> > > > If humans were _true_ flesh-eaters virtually *no one* would have any > > > > problem with raw meat. We'd _all_ find the smell and sight of bloody > > > > raw flesh highly appetizing, even salivate when around cows and pigs.
> > > Is there any single foodstuff which would pass the universal 'highly > > > appetising' test?
> > Of course. Many.
> I can't think of any which would, even amongst the relatively small sample > of my immediate family, let alone the entire human race. Could you suggest a > few examples of foods found universally 'highly appetising', please?
Sugar and salt and used pretty much everywhere and have long been highly prized. Oh, and meat is very popular too!
|
