Would you eat ice cream made from human milk?

[Amazon 7]

I like her description better...

The "bubba" dumb as dirt and proud of it anti-elitists who wish to live in an Idiocracy world..... are closer in attitude and action to cavemen and they revel in their lack of sophistication.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Perhaps you can explain how people live their entire lives as vegans. Physiologial evidence is:

- Compound jaw

Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat.

Quote

- digestive enzymes not great for breaking down red meat

So you treat that the same as "don't break down red meat"? Hey, what about white meat, like pork, or cat?

Quote

- Small throat diameter, not good for eating meat

???? Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. (Yeah, I know how that sounds. Deal with it.)

Quote

- Teeth structure, molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation.

How fortunate for your point that you forgot to mention our CANINE TEETH.

And since when do you grind your food with your incisors?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

You know, the funny thing is, there are such parallels between this omnivor/vegetarian debate and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate.

In both cases, we have a group who, since they don't like something, don't want the other group to be able to have that thing, and do what they can (whether futile or not) to try to stand in the way of it.

On the other hand, those who want the thing (guns, meat) NEVER try to force the others to partake. No one is trying to outlaw not having a gun. No one is trying to outlaw not eating meat.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

P.S. Why did our appendix become vestigial?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[LadiDadi 0]

Hey... I'm from Georgia. I had a wonderful uncle named Bub. Short for Bubba. Bubba because his mother and father thought that Grover Cleveland Mac Donald was a good name. He lived with his wife and adult child (who today would likely be considered Autistic - then he was just 'simple') down the street from us and I still remember the night his still blew up. My dad's name is James Paul and my mom wanted to name me Jamie Paula but Dad nixed that idea for fear that people would call his little girl Bubba. ('Bubba' is Southernese for 'Junior' for those of you who don't know)

I only use the name 'Bubba' because that's just the fill-in-the-blank-name in my world. Not because I see it as a negative. I use it for the makebelieve cavemen because, in my experience, Georgia dirt farmers are some of the most inventive people in the world. The less you have, the more inventive you get with what little you do have.

That's all.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate:

PETA - Spawn of Satan or Gift of the Gods...

GO!

If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you.
****************************
Be like the cupcake and suck it up.

[birdlike 0]

SPAWN OF SATAN!

I called it!! I called it!!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[jclalor 12]

I think you have me kind of all wrong, fuck bush, and most of all I am a non believer. We do need stem cell research and what would make you think I am against it?

The bottom line is I will always have many fresh tasty animals of my choosing to eat and medicines that have been properly tested on chimpanzees.
Peta is no more of a threat to my way of life than fringe groups like the KKK or Code pink.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat.

I feed my dog veggies, donuts, whatever I'm having, as well as her Science Diet, so what can be used for either has a design for one or the other, generally. Are you going to argue that a compound jaw is need more for cutting and grinding vegetation or for ripping soft tissue? Rememebr, structure = function.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you treat that the same as "don't break down red meat"? Hey, what about white meat, like pork, or cat?

Red meat and Pork are a lot alike in terms of digestion as I know it, foul and fish are different to my understanding. With all the other human physiological attributes, humans were originally naturally designed to eat vegetation.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>???? Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. (Yeah, I know how that sounds. Deal with it.)


Being unable and having it to be difficult/unnatural are different.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.How fortunate for your point that you forgot to mention our CANINE TEETH.

I didn't forget about them, I wanted you to bring them up as a sort of trap. Canine, eye teeth for uppers and stomach teeth for lowers, are far more pronounced in males than in females, if even present in females, evidences the notion they were naturally designed for fighting. If the males of a species utilize canines but the females of the same species do not, we can deduce the dependent variable is defense, not diet. Unless you want to infer the males and females have different diets; males carnivores, females herbivores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_teeth


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And since when do you grind your food with your incisors?


I think I wrote humans have molars for that, quit trying to restate my words. Incisors cut, molars grind.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You know, the funny thing is, there are such parallels between this omnivor/vegetarian debate and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate.

In both cases, we have a group who, since they don't like something, don't want the other group to be able to have that thing, and do what they can (whether futile or not) to try to stand in the way of it.

On the other hand, those who want the thing (guns, meat) NEVER try to force the others to partake. No one is trying to outlaw not having a gun. No one is trying to outlaw not eating meat.

And the same can be said of your party and their stance on abortion; see how everything is related? Basically, PETA would like to stop all animal sufferring, but at this point they want to start with the most gross form of animal abuse, furs, labs, etc...

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

P.S. Why did our appendix become vestigial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix


That again supports my contention that humans were originally designed to be strict herbivores. Since we have elected to be omnivores, the need for the appendix is not neccesary.

One potential ancestral purpose put forth by Darwin[3] was that the appendix was used for digesting leaves as primates. Over time, we have eaten fewer vegetables and have evolved, over thousands of years, for this organ to be smaller to make room for our stomach. It may be a vestigial organ of ancient man that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. Evidence can be seen in herbivorous animals such as the Koala. The cecum of the koala is attached to the juncture of the small and large intestines and is very long, enabling it to host bacteria specific for cellulose breakdown. Early man’s ancestor must have also relied upon this system and lived on a diet rich in foliage. As man began to eat more easily digested foods, they became less reliant on cellulose-rich plants for energy. The cecum became less necessary for digestion and mutations that previously had been deleterious were no longer selected against. These alleles became more frequent and the cecum continued to shrink. After thousands of years, the once-necessary cecum has degraded to what we see today; the appendix. [3]

So the very fact that we genetically still produce the organ is string evidence that we were designed to be herbivores.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

P.S. Why did our appendix become vestigial?

Ask a Creationist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

You know, the funny thing is, there are such parallels between this omnivor/vegetarian debate and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate.

In both cases, we have a group who, since they don't like something, don't want the other group to be able to have that thing, and do what they can (whether futile or not) to try to stand in the way of it.

On the other hand, those who want the thing (guns, meat) NEVER try to force the others to partake. No one is trying to outlaw not having a gun. .

Kennesaw, GA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think you have me kind of all wrong, fuck bush, and most of all I am a non believer. We do need stem cell research and what would make you think I am against it?

The bottom line is I will always have many fresh tasty animals of my choosing to eat and medicines that have been properly tested on chimpanzees.
Peta is no more of a threat to my way of life than fringe groups like the KKK or Code pink.

>>>>>>>>I think you have me kind of all wrong, fuck bush, and most of all I am a non believer.


No, Bush really does exist.


>>>>>>>>>>The bottom line is I will always have many fresh tasty animals of my choosing to eat and medicines that have been properly tested on chimpanzees.


Cool, I expect I won't be recieving any emails of grievance and regret when your arterial system and your colon decide which are going to take a shit first. These animals get thier revenge, altho it takes years. I'm not in a contest for longevity, I just don't want to have to lift up the front of my shirt to take a shit.

[Lucky... 0]

Here's a list of reasons humans were designed as herbivores:

- Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

- Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

- Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

- Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

- Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

- Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.


http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy


Aren't we omnivores? No, look above. Look at the graph for teeth arrangement and design.

[ladyskydiver 0]

Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding me.

Please, if you're going to use sources to highlight your viewpoint, use scientific sources and ones that have been peer reviewed. Thanks!

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding me.

Please, if you're going to use sources to highlight your viewpoint, use scientific sources and ones that have been peer reviewed. Thanks!

This isn't a dissertation, it's a posting board. Don't blame my sources because you can't impeach my assertions. Many folks on your side use Wikipedia for this forum. WHy not post what you disagree with and let me find another source.....BTW, "everything" isn't a realistic answer and a total acquiescence. Iposted other sources as well, tell me what you disagree with and why and I will find other sources.

[ladyskydiver 0]

I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on.

Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc.

I'm quite used to having to provide scientific and peer reviewed papers to back up my position (That whole grad school thing kinda requires it.), however, since I haven't stated my position, backing it up is not required.

I, also, am not saying this is a dissertation. I am saying that....

You are very vehement in your beliefs. As a result, I'd expect better resources from you than Wikipedia. I've seen some really spectacular sites utilized by various people on this board to support their arguments and just expect the same out of you.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>I'm quite used to having to provide scientific and peer reviewed papers to back up my position (That whole grad school thing kinda requires it.), however, since I haven't stated my position, backing it up is not required.

Well, you kinda have:

Oh, I don't support PETA. While some of their ideas are good, they go to extremes which I do not support.

Right now, they're in process of ensuring that vet schools do not get dogs/donkeys/etc. to dissect, because the animals can not donate their bodies to science willingly. So, it will be interesting to see what happens when vets come out of school and their first experience with handling the insides of an animal is during an operation and THEN realizing how fragile some of the structures are.


Of course, pick a non-position, rag on other's positions and demand peer-reviewed evidence on a posting board for positions that you have yet to state. That's a ringer .

As for peer-reviewed journals, I have yet to see a forum where people have posted them, that is hilarious. I have a degree as well, so I have read and written papers on them. Again, as I wrote, saying, "I disagree with everything" is a non-answer and total acquiescence. Call shenanigans on whatever you wish that I've written and I will be glad to further support that.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are very vehement in your beliefs. As a result, I'd expect better resources from you than Wikipedia. I've seen some really spectacular sites utilized by various people on this board to support their arguments and just expect the same out of you.


Your entire argument is based not upon the 2 sites I've posted, all of the other assertions I've made, 1 of which you didn't even address, but that of ambiguity and disqualification. Sorry dear, you have to answer issues and evidence with the same. Discount any or all of what I've written with your evidence and I will be glad to counter. If you're just posting to say you did, congratulations.

Here’s a list of my assertions, see if they’re factually wrong:

Here's a list of reasons humans were designed as herbivores:

- Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

- Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

- Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

- Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

- Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

- Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.


AND

CANINE TEETH: Canine, eye teeth for uppers and stomach teeth for lowers, are far more pronounced in males than in females, if even present in females, evidences the notion they were naturally designed for fighting. If the males of a species utilize canines but the females of the same species do not, we can deduce the dependent variable is defense, not diet. Unless you want to infer the males and females have different diets; males carnivores, females herbivores.

_________________________________________________________________


Address those, tell me if I’m wrong and why……or, continue the ambiguity.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can explain how people live their entire lives as vegans. Physiologial evidence is:

- Compound jaw

- digestive enzymes not great for breaking down red meat

- Small throat diameter, not good for eating meat

- Teeth structure, molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation.
.

Teeth structure indicates omnivorous, you do not (ok maybe YOU do), have a mouth like a horse or cow, our jaws and dentition are designed to handle both meat and vegetation.

We have NEVER been herbivorous, it's a personal choice not a survival stratagem

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat.

I feed my dog veggies, donuts, whatever I'm having, as well as her Science Diet, so what can be used for either has a design for one or the other, generally. Are you going to argue that a compound jaw is need more for cutting and grinding vegetation or for ripping soft tissue? Rememebr, structure = function.

Really what I was doing was pointing out the fallacy that some vegetarian-people use, i.e. "Humans are not 'supposed' to eat meat." If that was the case, we wouldn't be able to without harming ourselves, or at least, without getting nothing of any nutritional value from it.

You were feeding into that fallacy, the way you were implying that (a) incisors are for grinding and (b) we didn't also have canine teeth. This is not about what works best; it's simply about what works.

Structure does not necessarily dictate or limit function in the way you are clearly trying to imply.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you treat that the same as "don't break down red meat"? Hey, what about white meat, like pork, or cat?

Red meat and Pork are a lot alike in terms of digestion as I know it, foul and fish are different to my understanding. With all the other human physiological attributes, humans were originally naturally designed to eat vegetation.

"Foul" Only if you forget that you were defrosting it on the counter and leave it out for too long.

It really doesn't matter what we were "naturally dsigned for" according to you.

First of all, you don't have a direct line to the "designer," so you are hardly authoritative on what we were "designed for."

The fact is, we CAN digest meat, and we DO digest meat, so the claim that we're not "supposed to" is just absurd.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>???? Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. (Yeah, I know how that sounds. Deal with it.)


Being unable and having it to be difficult/unnatural are different.

So it's "difficult/unnatural" for human beings to swallow meat?

What do you think CHEWING is for??

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And since when do you grind your food with your incisors?

Quote

I think I wrote humans have molars for that, quit trying to restate my words. Incisors cut, molars grind.

Are you fucking for real? What do you mean, "I think I wrote"?! I QUOTED YOU, didn't I? DIRECTLY. Do you want me to quote the exact same material again? OK, here it is. YOU SAID:

Quote

Perhaps you can explain how people live their entire lives as vegans. Physiologial evidence is:
- Compound jaw
- digestive enzymes not great for breaking down red meat
- Small throat diameter, not good for eating meat
- Teeth structure, molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation.

So much for what you claimed you really said, or that I took it out of context.

"Molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation."
Hmm... Straight from the herbivore's mouth.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

P.S. Why did our appendix become vestigial?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix


That again supports my contention that humans were originally designed to be strict herbivores. Since we have elected to be omnivores, the need for the appendix is not neccesary.

You demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. I am not an expert, myself, but even I understand this far better than you evidently do.

An appendix does not just "go away" if not used. Our body parts do not become vestigial because we "elect" to be certain things.

We were not "designed" for anything. We evolved to fit a niche.

And if we were not already evolved to eat meat, we would not have been able to simply "elect" to do so, any more than we could "elect" now to start eating tree bark and expect our appendices to start functioning again.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

P.S. Why did our appendix become vestigial?

Ask a Creationist.

Good point, but digressive. This is not a conversation about Creationism -- unless you count Lucky, who seems to be arguing that we were "designed" to eat vegetation.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You know, the funny thing is, there are such parallels between this omnivor/vegetarian debate and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate.

In both cases, we have a group who, since they don't like something, don't want the other group to be able to have that thing, and do what they can (whether futile or not) to try to stand in the way of it.

On the other hand, those who want the thing (guns, meat) NEVER try to force the others to partake. No one is trying to outlaw not having a gun. .

Kennesaw, GA.

You'd have a point, if the Kennesaw ordinance was anything more than ornamental. The fact is, they do not enforce it, they have never enforced it, and they probably never will enforce it -- because the law includes exceptions for those whose beliefs or preferences do not allow for them to arm themselves.

By the way, I knew that you would bring up Kennesaw even before I hit "post." It's a red herring. Gun owners are not about forcing non-gun owners to get guns; and if Kennesaw is the best "proof" you have that they are, then sorry, you lose.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on.

Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc.

Don't forget GUNS!
We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! [

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know, the funny thing is, there are such parallels between this omnivor/vegetarian debate and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate.

In both cases, we have a group who, since they don't like something, don't want the other group to be able to have that thing, and do what they can (whether futile or not) to try to stand in the way of it.

On the other hand, those who want the thing (guns, meat) NEVER try to force the others to partake. No one is trying to outlaw not having a gun. .

Kennesaw, GA.

You'd have a point, if the Kennesaw ordinance was anything more than ornamental. The fact is, they do not enforce it, they have never enforced it, and they probably never will enforce it -- because the law includes exceptions for those whose beliefs or preferences do not allow for them to arm themselves.

By the way, I knew that you would bring up Kennesaw even before I hit "post." It's a red herring. Gun owners are not about forcing non-gun owners to get guns; and if Kennesaw is the best "proof" you have that they are, then sorry, you lose.

Ummm - no.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.