Frog Dissection
Mike Vandeman
On 30 Apr 1998 10:52:46 GMT, icti...@aol.com (Ictiobus) wrote:
.Well, I was not appalled by it but I am reluctant to accept that animal
.dissection in high school and lower schools accomplishes anything except
.promote disrespect for the critters being dissected and the opportunity for
.girls to go "eeeeew" and boys to laugh at them for it. Interactive programs
.are okay for some but we have very good dissectable models which I absolutely
.prefer because they provide a real physical experience which has a good chance
.of being remembered. I think also that the lab practicum COULD be a real
.teacher done dissection that would allow extrapolation from the model's
.idealism to the real world.
.
.We're not actually losing anything in animal (or plant) diversity because these
.specimens come from places where they're grown for this purpose and no other.
That doesn't follow. Where does biodiversity come from? From genetic
mutations. These can happen any time in any organism, even those
"raised for dissection". To say that no diversity is ever lost when
they are killed is FALSE.
---
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Mike Vandeman
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:35:31 -0500, "Stephen C. Heard"
<sc...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
.Dana,
. First off, what grade is your daughter in? Secondly, dissections
.offer a hands-on experience that cannot be replaced by pictures models or
.even CD-roms (this is why medical students use real human bodies to
.disect). As far as teaching kids disrespect for animals. This isn't
.torturing the animals. This is the sole purposed for their being
.brought into the world. The frogs were raised to be dissected just like
.cattle is raised to be ate.
I can't believe a thinking person could say such a thing! Regardless
of how the frog was created, it has a will of its own and deserves as
much respect as any other living creature, including you. Shouldn't
we, following your logic, raise some humans in test tubes for the sole
purpose of dissecting them? By your logic, that would be okay. On the
other hand, if you have a double standard (different standards for
humans & all other species), what is that distinction based on?
Remember, we are genetically 98.6% identical with a chimpanzee....
Even Thoreau incouraged the study of dead
.animals by kids as a way to understand nature.
That's different from actually KILLING them.
Although, it's not
.considered a disection, I myself have learned more about anatomy from
.skinning deer than I did in school. How does your daughter feel about
.dissecting the frogs? If she doesn't have a problem with it I see no need
.for alarm. I was appalled at the way PETA treated a beauty pagent
.contestant when she said that she enjoyed dissecting. Just because Jeffery
.Dahmer also enjoyed dissectioning, PETA had no right to compare those two
.people.
What does PETA have to do with this? It is as irrelevant as Jeffery
Dahmer. I can't see any rational basis for assigning any different
rights to humans & other species. They don't differ in any ethically
important way.
Don Baccus
In article <35493b19...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I can't believe a thinking person could say such a thing! Regardless
>of how the frog was created, it has a will of its own and deserves as
>much respect as any other living creature, including you.
Yeah, let's just shitcan science into the toilet, and training in science,
so we can continue to have First Lady's who consult their astrologers,
ala Nancy; State Legislatures like Utah that pursue Cold Fusion for years
after the research was shown to be undeniably flawed, and more people like
Vandeman, who will ride their pseudo-moralistic horse of ignorance and
denial into the eternal flame of shame.
At least us smart people will outlive the likes of Vandeman, if they win.
If they did win, their denial of science and technology seems so complete
it's not likely they could wipe their own diapers if we insisted they
not use products of science and technology like shitwipes.
How dare this man use a computer, the internet, and the phone lines in
order to castigate science and technology!
>Shouldn't we, following your logic, raise some humans in test tubes for
>the sole purpose of dissecting them?
Frogs are human, by your analogy. Of course, so is asparugus. So is
grass. So are bacteria. So are HIV retroviruses.
>By your logic, that would be okay.
By your logic, we can't kill anything, because we can simply say:
>On the other hand, if you have a double standard (different standards for
>humans & all other species),
what is that distinction based on?
because ALL OTHER SPECIES is a very broad statement. You do agree that
asparagus is a separate species than Homo sap., don't you?
Your an "animalist" by the very framing of your statement, so do try to
be precise so we can attack you on why animals are more important than
botanical species.
>What does PETA have to do with this? It is as irrelevant as Jeffery
>Dahmer.
Dahmer's not real, you fucking limey.
>I can't see any rational basis for assigning any different
>rights to humans & other species. They don't differ in any ethically
>important way.
Really? Do you really mean to say that plants and humans have equal
rights?
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Mike Vandeman
On 1 May 98 06:06:56 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
.In article <35493b19...@news.pacbell.net>,
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
.>I can't believe a thinking person could say such a thing! Regardless
.>of how the frog was created, it has a will of its own and deserves as
.>much respect as any other living creature, including you.
.
.Yeah, let's just shitcan science into the toilet, and training in science,
I didn't say that, of course. I just think that a lot of killing in
the name of science is not justifiable. There is no net benefit.
.>I can't see any rational basis for assigning any different
.>rights to humans & other species. They don't differ in any ethically
.>important way.
.
.Really? Do you really mean to say that plants and humans have equal
.rights?
Until I hear a good reason, I can't see any rational reason to assign
them different rights. Since you haven't given any, I have to assume
that you don't have any, either.
Phil
Mike:
And waht about bacteria, fungi, viruses. Would you have us avoid
antisetics, antibiotics and succumb to infection?
Mike Vandeman
On Mon, 04 May 1998 19:10:33 -0700, Phil <jor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> On 1 May 98 06:06:56 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
.>
.> .In article <35493b19...@news.pacbell.net>,
.> .Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.> .
.> .>I can't believe a thinking person could say such a thing! Regardless
.> .>of how the frog was created, it has a will of its own and deserves as
.> .>much respect as any other living creature, including you.
.> .
.> .Yeah, let's just shitcan science into the toilet, and training in science,
.>
.> I didn't say that, of course. I just think that a lot of killing in
.> the name of science is not justifiable. There is no net benefit.
.>
.> .>I can't see any rational basis for assigning any different
.> .>rights to humans & other species. They don't differ in any ethically
.> .>important way.
.> .
.> .Really? Do you really mean to say that plants and humans have equal
.> .rights?
.>
.> Until I hear a good reason, I can't see any rational reason to assign
.> them different rights. Since you haven't given any, I have to assume
.> that you don't have any, either.
.>
.> ---
.> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years
.> fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
.>
.> http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
.
.
.Mike:
.
.And waht about bacteria, fungi, viruses. Would you have us avoid
.antisetics, antibiotics and succumb to infection?
If you like. We all have the same right to live, so we have the same
right to protect ourselves (i.e., I don't know if ANYONE has rights,
but is humans do, then there is no rational reason for denying those
same rights to other species; see _Respect for Nature__, by Paul W.
Taylor).
Scott Nudds
Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: If you like. We all have the same right to live, so we have the same
: right to protect ourselves (i.e., I don't know if ANYONE has rights,
: but is humans do, then there is no rational reason for denying those
: same rights to other species; see _Respect for Nature__, by Paul W.
: Taylor).
Adoption of this philosophy would be a wonderful place to start.
PM Bowles
Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
pretending they already exist.
Philip Bowles
Teel Adams
PM Bowles wrote:
> Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
> and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
> humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
> focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
> pretending they already exist.
I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
fundamental gift of creation, exist a priori to laws.
Chollian Newsgroup User
<6irdhm$5os$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <Pine.SOL.3.95q.98050...@sis.bris.ac.uk> <35526A66...@dcr.net>
w
w
x
x
j
^x
Distribution:
Teel Adams (col...@dcr.net) wrote:
Don Baccus
>I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
>American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
>beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
The Declaration of Independence does, indeed, make this statement about
humans.
Not about animals or popcorn, though...
And, it was a political document, so the accuracy of the statement in any
objective sense is up for grabs. It wasn't supported by a burning Bush
(or Reagan, for that matter). God didn't make his or her presence felt.
The whole issue, regarding humans, is up for grabs - certainly we have
many countries which don't buy into it (including European ones, of course).
Now, if we can't even extrapolate the statement to include happy Happy Meal
eaters, how can we do so for asparagus?
>Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
>about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
>fundamental gift of creation
Creation itself is a myth, of course.
exist a priori to laws.
pn...@arjfthl.arg
On Thu, 07 May 1998 22:13:58 -0400, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
>PM Bowles wrote:
>
>> Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
>> and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
>> humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
>> focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
>> pretending they already exist.
>
>I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
>American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
>beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
>
>Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
>about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
>fundamental gift of creation, exist a priori to laws.
A "fundamental gift of creation"????
Tell ya what, you go to Siberia and look up one of those big Russian
Brown Bears and explain to him that rights are a fundamental gift of
creation and see if he respects your rights by not eating you for
supper.
I would say the same thing to someone wishing to give that bear
"rights", since that bear doesn't have a pocket for 'em anyway and
there's no way that bear is ever going to respect anyone/anything
else's so called rights anyway.
PM Bowles
On 8 May 1998, Chollian Newsgroup User wrote:
>
>
>
> <6irdhm$5os$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org> <Pine.SOL.3.95q.98050...@sis.bris.ac.uk> <35526A66...@dcr.net>
> w
> w
> x
> x
> j
> ^x
>
> Distribution:
>
> Teel Adams (col...@dcr.net) wrote:
> : PM Bowles wrote:
>
> : > Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
> : > and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
> : > humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
> : > focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
> : > pretending they already exist.
>
> : I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
> : American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
> : beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
>
> : Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
> : about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
> : fundamental gift of creation, exist a priori to laws.
I am not American, nor do I share your outmoded beliefs. Belief, and
language, change over time and your Declaration of Independence
expresses beliefs which are several centuries old in words which are
just as antiquated; what your revolutionaries meant by 'rights' may
differ considerably from what is currently meant. It is also worth
noting that your own constitution is a legal document which codifies the
aforementioned rights which your people accept - over the course of your
history, several of these 'inalienable rights' have been removed from
that same document because, with no legal force, they simply don't
exist. Without laws, humans have the 'right' (in reality, the
opportunity) to do whatever they wish; in a society with laws they have
only the rights conferred upon them by the state, and these rights may
differ between different societies because the law allows different
things within each.
Philip Bowles
Mike Vandeman
On 6 May 1998 22:46:28 GMT, powl...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B.
Powlesland) wrote:
.In article <354fb2dd...@news.pacbell.net>,
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
.>there is no rational reason for denying those same rights to other
.>species
.
.Yes there is. Non-human species are incapable of comprehening and
.reciprocating rights.
Neither are human retarded and crazy people. So what? That has nothing
to do with the basic rights.
And for good reason, the whole notion of rights is
.a human concept.
All the more reason to demand that it be logical. So I am still
waiting to hear why we can have rights, but other species can't. :)
BTW, this is all explained very clearly in _Respect for Nature_, by
Paul W. Taylor.
Mike Vandeman
On Thu, 7 May 1998 13:59:08 GMT, PM Bowles <pb6...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
.
.
.On 7 May 1998, Scott Nudds wrote:
.
.> Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) wrote:
.>
.> : If you like. We all have the same right to live, so we have the same
.> : right to protect ourselves (i.e., I don't know if ANYONE has rights,
.> : but is humans do, then there is no rational reason for denying those
.> : same rights to other species; see _Respect for Nature__, by Paul W.
.> : Taylor).
.>
.> Adoption of this philosophy would be a wonderful place to start.
.
.Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
Nonsense. That is only LEGAL rights. Read the book.
.and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
.humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
.focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
.pretending they already exist.
I haven't done that. I said we have the SAME rights. In other words,
they are equal, even if they don't exist. I don't know if ANYONE has
rights, but if WE do, then WILDLIFE do also.
.Philip Bowles
Don Baccus
In article <3553b013...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Neither are human retarded and crazy people. So what? That has nothing
>to do with the basic rights.
Ahhh...but we deprive them of their basic rights, for instance by making
them live in institutions or in staffed homes.
Are you suggesting we should let all crazy people free?
>All the more reason to demand that it be logical. So I am still
>waiting to hear why we can have rights, but other species can't. :)
Because we say so. As humans, we get to say that. When animals learn
to say "fuck off, we do have rights", well, maybe we'll listen to them.
PM Bowles
On Sat, 9 May 1998, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 1998 13:59:08 GMT, PM Bowles <pb6...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .On 7 May 1998, Scott Nudds wrote:
> .
> .> Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> .>
> .> : If you like. We all have the same right to live, so we have the same
> .> : right to protect ourselves (i.e., I don't know if ANYONE has rights,
> .> : but is humans do, then there is no rational reason for denying those
> .> : same rights to other species; see _Respect for Nature__, by Paul W.
> .> : Taylor).
> .>
> .> Adoption of this philosophy would be a wonderful place to start.
> .
> .Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
>
> Nonsense. That is only LEGAL rights. Read the book.
What other rights can there be? Rights are conferred by a state; if a
particular state makes something illegal, then citizens or subjects of
that state no longer have a right to engage in that activity.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 'right to life' outside
legislature; life is an opportunity, and like any opportunity it can be
wasted or taken away - if there were some innate wrongness about
killing that all animals shared, everything would starve because it was
too busy respecting its potential prey's 'right to life' to take the
opportunity of having a meal. Necessity would not be a sufficient
excuse; after all, you might die but since you would consume many
individuals throughout your life if you lived, it would be better for
one to die than many.
Mike Vandeman
On Sat, 9 May 1998 07:32:12 GMT, PM Bowles <pb6...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
.
.
.On Sat, 9 May 1998, Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> On Thu, 7 May 1998 13:59:08 GMT, PM Bowles <pb6...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
.>
.> .
.> .
.> .On 7 May 1998, Scott Nudds wrote:
.> .
.> .> Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pacbell.net) wrote:
.> .>
.> .> : If you like. We all have the same right to live, so we have the same
.> .> : right to protect ourselves (i.e., I don't know if ANYONE has rights,
.> .> : but is humans do, then there is no rational reason for denying those
.> .> : same rights to other species; see _Respect for Nature__, by Paul W.
.> .> : Taylor).
.> .>
.> .> Adoption of this philosophy would be a wonderful place to start.
.> .
.> .Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
.>
.> Nonsense. That is only LEGAL rights. Read the book.
.
.What other rights can there be?
MORAL rights. For example, we recognize a right of freedom of speech,
regardless of whether a particular government honors that right IN THE
FORM OF A LEGAL RIGHT. As I said, read the book.
Rights are conferred by a state; if a
.particular state makes something illegal, then citizens or subjects of
.that state no longer have a right to engage in that activity.
.Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 'right to life' outside
.legislature; life is an opportunity, and like any opportunity it can be
.wasted or taken away - if there were some innate wrongness about
.killing that all animals shared, everything would starve because it was
.too busy respecting its potential prey's 'right to life' to take the
.opportunity of having a meal. Necessity would not be a sufficient
.excuse; after all, you might die but since you would consume many
.individuals throughout your life if you lived, it would be better for
.one to die than many.
.
.> .and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
.> .humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
.> .focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
.> .pretending they already exist.
.>
.> I haven't done that. I said we have the SAME rights. In other words,
.> they are equal, even if they don't exist. I don't know if ANYONE has
.> rights, but if WE do, then WILDLIFE do also.
.>
.> .Philip Bowles
.
PM Bowles
Morality is a tool of the legislative procedure; if people are induced
to believe that something is wrong, then a large proportion will stop
doing it. This saves both parliamentary time (or the equivalent) and
financial costs involved in establishing and then enforcing a law. Your
government allows it because it was an ideal of the original
revolutionaries (who had no such 'right') who incorporated it into their
constitution, thereby giving it legitimacy in a legal document. Many
other nations deny any such priviledge to their citizens because they
know that a society's moral values are dictated by the institutions of
that society, primarily government, the media and religious centres
(which may be influenced or controlled by government).
Philip Bowles
Rick Etter
> .What other rights can there be?
>
> MORAL rights. For example, we recognize a right of freedom of speech,
> regardless of whether a particular government honors that right IN THE
> FORM OF A LEGAL RIGHT. As I said, read the book.
So, there are how many billions of people in the world, and you are
referencing a document that applies to 250 million of them? Freedom of
speech is not a universally recognized right, even among humans. Now
you want to apply it to cats? dogs? What?
--
CANOE NORTH!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
YOU MEN WHO LIVE IN CITIES - Who toil, day in and out, in the thick
of noisy, teeming multitudes, under artificial lights, under roofs,
behind glass, in offices and factories far away from the sun and the
air, the light and the wind - don't you feel at times something tugging
at your heartstrings?
......It is the "Call of the Wild", the oldest call of all - the call
coming to you through generations and generations who have ignored it.
Captain Thierry Mallet
Teel Adams
pn...@arjfthl.arg neatly typed:
> Tell ya what, you go to Siberia and look up one of those big Russian
> Brown Bears and explain to him that rights are a fundamental gift of
> creation and see if he respects your rights by not eating you for
> supper.
>
We are not talking about Kodak Bears, Sun Bears, Koala Bears or the Chicago
Bears.The question was, are right some concept granted by the government, or,
as the Declaration of Independence states, are there inalienable rights, endowed
to us by our Creator.
Once this point is settled, we can move onto discussions of ethical behavior
towards the other creations upon this planet. But until we get past the first
point, not much point mentioning trite contrived examples about Siberian (brown?)
bears.
Teel Adams
Don Baccus wrote:
> The Declaration of Independence does, indeed, make this statement about
> humans.
>
> Not about animals or popcorn, though...
We are not talking about animals or popcorn (maz-tica), The point of debate is
do rights exist a priori to laws.
>
>
> And, it was a political document, so the accuracy of the statement in any
> objective sense is up for grabs. It wasn't supported by a burning Bush
> (or Reagan, for that matter). God didn't make his or her presence felt.
> The whole issue, regarding humans, is up for grabs - certainly we have
> many countries which don't buy into it (including European ones, of course).
>
> Now, if we can't even extrapolate the statement to include happy Happy Meal
> eaters, how can we do so for asparagus?
>
> >Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
> >about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
> >fundamental gift of creation
>
> Creation itself is a myth, of course.
> exist a priori to laws.
Scott Nudds
: >All the more reason to demand that it be logical. So I am still
: >waiting to hear why we can have rights, but other species can't. :)
Don Baccus (dho...@pacifier.com) wrote:
: Because we say so. As humans, we get to say that.
So according to Don Baccus, might makes right. And those who consider
themselves superior are justified to deny the rights of others.
Quite immoral.
Scott Nudds
Rick Etter (ret...@bright.net) wrote:
: So, there are how many billions of people in the world, and you are
: referencing a document that applies to 250 million of them? Freedom of
: speech is not a universally recognized right, even among humans. Now
: you want to apply it to cats? dogs? What?
Why don't we start with a right to life. A right to freedom and a right
to habitat so they can reproduce?
Rick Etter
Cockroaches seem to do just fine without 'our' help. You want them now
to be able to vote, too?
Don Baccus
In article <6j2unn$d7c$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
> So according to Don Baccus, might makes right. And those who consider
>themselves superior are justified to deny the rights of others.
Not might - but the ability to reason. It is this ability that gave rise
to the human invention of morality.
It isn't really a matter of whether or not we have the right to define morality.
Morality is something we've invented, right or wrong. There is no innate morality,
there is merely a set of agreed-upon rules which define right or wrong, which in
many cases differ from society to society.
> Quite immoral.
See, you yourself are willing to invent your own definition of morality. If it is
not right for me to state that humans have the right to define morality as they
choose, is it right for you to to prove my point by declaring my statement as
being immoral according to your own, personally-invented code of morality?
Don Baccus
In article <35554219...@dcr.net>, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>
>> The Declaration of Independence does, indeed, make this statement about
>> humans.
>>
>> Not about animals or popcorn, though...
>
>We are not talking about animals or popcorn (maz-tica), The point of debate is
>do rights exist a priori to laws.
Which is why I said:
>> And, it was a political document, so the accuracy of the statement in any
>> objective sense is up for grabs.
Now, that document said many great things and the prose was wonderful, but the
guy who wrote it owned slaves despite his elegant claim about the intrinsic
rights of man. Yeah, "white" was implied...
Mike Edgar
In article <355293c0...@news.newsguy.com>, pn...@arjfthl.arg
writes
>>
>>I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
>>American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
>>beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
>>
>>about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
>
>A "fundamental gift of creation"????
>
>Brown Bears and explain to him that rights are a fundamental gift of
>creation and see if he respects your rights by not eating you for
>supper.
>
>"rights", since that bear doesn't have a pocket for 'em anyway and
>there's no way that bear is ever going to respect anyone/anything
>else's so called rights anyway.
>
bear you refer to has the right to be left alone in its habitat. Who but
hunter/killer primitive idiots would go to Siberia to assassinate a
bear.. ROTFL ... ??
If the bear has no rights then neither do you, and that makes you "fair
game" also ... get it now .. ??
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike (ICQ No = 4262003)"the line between human and nonhuman is, like all
lines, one that should be drawn in pencil, so that it can be moved to
accommodate moral evolution and the realization of moral reality."
Prof Gary L Francione. (Threatening Email will be publicly posted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edgar
In article <3553d...@news.pacifier.com>, Don Baccus
<dho...@pacifier.com> writes
>In article <3553b013...@news.pacbell.net>,
>Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Neither are human retarded and crazy people. So what? That has nothing
>>to do with the basic rights.
>
>Ahhh...but we deprive them of their basic rights, for instance by making
>them live in institutions or in staffed homes.
>
>Are you suggesting we should let all crazy people free?
>
>>waiting to hear why we can have rights, but other species can't. :)
>
>to say "fuck off, we do have rights", well, maybe we'll listen to them.
>
The cold, mind-boggling arrogance of this "superior being's" last
statement is truly horrifying ... is it perhaps of the same species that
thinks ethnic-cleansing and the master race methodology is acceptable ..
??!!.
Mike Vandeman
On 11 May 98 00:33:04 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
.In article <6j2unn$d7c$4...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,
.Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
.
.> So according to Don Baccus, might makes right. And those who consider
.>themselves superior are justified to deny the rights of others.
.
.Not might - but the ability to reason.
NEITHER make right! By your logic, children and anyone else who can't
reason don't have rights. That is BS.
It is this ability that gave rise
.to the human invention of morality.
.
.It isn't really a matter of whether or not we have the right to define morality.
.Morality is something we've invented, right or wrong. There is no innate morality,
.there is merely a set of agreed-upon rules which define right or wrong, which in
.many cases differ from society to society.
So "morality" means whatever we choose it to mean? Then it is
meaningless. It becomes mere custom. The power of morality is that the
vast majority agree on it.
.> Quite immoral.
.
.See, you yourself are willing to invent your own definition of morality. If it is
.not right for me to state that humans have the right to define morality as they
.choose, is it right for you to to prove my point by declaring my statement as
.being immoral according to your own, personally-invented code of morality?
Basic morals have been agreed on by most people for thousands of
years. In fact, the Golden Rule says it all. Except that we
arbitrarily deny its application to other species.
.- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
. Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Don Baccus
In article <3558f4be...@news.pacbell.net>,
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>NEITHER make right! By your logic, children and anyone else who can't
>reason don't have rights. That is BS.
None of us have rights, in any intrinsic sense. Rights are established
by social convention.
>So "morality" means whatever we choose it to mean? Then it is
>meaningless. It becomes mere custom. The power of morality is that the
>vast majority agree on it.
Exactly my point, the vast majority agree on it. It is this agreement
that establishes a moral code. There's no moral code intrinsic to
the physical universe. Humans invented morality.
It's a very useful invention, of course.
>Basic morals have been agreed on by most people for thousands of
>years.
Hmmm...the ancient greeks buggered young boys and there was
nothing immoral about it in that culture, yet in western culture
today this behavior is considered immoral.
Morals exist by social convention, they're no more intrinsic than
rights.
>In fact, the Golden Rule says it all. Except that we
>arbitrarily deny its application to other species.
Well, morality is arbitrary, so why the surprise?
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Don Baccus
In article <nf4XOGA3...@edgarco.demon.co.uk>,
Mike Edgar <Mi...@edgarco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The cold, mind-boggling arrogance of this "superior being's" last
>statement is truly horrifying ... is it perhaps of the same species that
>thinks ethnic-cleansing and the master race methodology is acceptable ..
>??!!.
People aren't animals.
Hey, Edgar, don't you eat meat? Does this mean you endorse cannibilism?
Mike Vandeman
On Wed, 13 May 1998 00:21:10 +0100, Mike Edgar
<Mi...@edgarco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.In article <355293c0...@news.newsguy.com>, pn...@arjfthl.arg
.writes
.>On Thu, 07 May 1998 22:13:58 -0400, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
.>
.>>PM Bowles wrote:
.>>
.>>> Except that it is, unfortunately, wrong. Rights are a legal phenomenon,
.>>> and only where the law grants rights to other species, or indeed to
.>>> humans, do those rights exist. The correct philosophy would be one which
.>>> focuses on providing legitimate rights for other animals rather than
.>>> pretending they already exist.
.>>
.>>I'm sorry, have you read the Dec. of Independence. I believe, that the
.>>American belief, (stolen, ie borrowed from the Iroquious), is that human
.>>beings are indowed with certain inalienable rights?
.>>
.>>Sorry, just a point that sticks in my craw when the far right starts talking
.>>about "non constitionalal right", or "new rights". Rights are a
.>>fundamental gift of creation, exist a priori to laws.
.>
.>A "fundamental gift of creation"????
.>
.>Tell ya what, you go to Siberia and look up one of those big Russian
.>Brown Bears and explain to him that rights are a fundamental gift of
.>creation and see if he respects your rights by not eating you for
.>supper.
.>
.>I would say the same thing to someone wishing to give that bear
.>"rights", since that bear doesn't have a pocket for 'em anyway and
.>there's no way that bear is ever going to respect anyone/anything
.>else's so called rights anyway.
.>
.You never catch on even to the basics do you ... ??!!, the point is the
.bear you refer to has the right to be left alone in its habitat. Who but
.hunter/killer primitive idiots would go to Siberia to assassinate a
.bear.. ROTFL ... ??
.
.If the bear has no rights then neither do you, and that makes you "fair
.game" also ... get it now .. ??
AMEN! Well said. :)
Mike Vandeman
On 13 May 98 01:51:04 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
.In article <nf4XOGA3...@edgarco.demon.co.uk>,
.Mike Edgar <Mi...@edgarco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.
.>The cold, mind-boggling arrogance of this "superior being's" last
.>statement is truly horrifying ... is it perhaps of the same species that
.>thinks ethnic-cleansing and the master race methodology is acceptable ..
.>??!!.
.
.People aren't animals.
Chimpanzees and humans are 98.6% genetically identical. Now what was
that you were saying about us not being animals???
.- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
. Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Mike Vandeman
On 13 May 98 01:50:07 GMT, dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
.In article <3558f4be...@news.pacbell.net>,
.Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
.>NEITHER make right! By your logic, children and anyone else who can't
.>reason don't have rights. That is BS.
.
.None of us have rights, in any intrinsic sense. Rights are established
.by social convention.
.
.>So "morality" means whatever we choose it to mean? Then it is
.>meaningless. It becomes mere custom. The power of morality is that the
.>vast majority agree on it.
.
.Exactly my point, the vast majority agree on it. It is this agreement
.that establishes a moral code. There's no moral code intrinsic to
.the physical universe. Humans invented morality.
.
.It's a very useful invention, of course.
.
.>Basic morals have been agreed on by most people for thousands of
.>years.
.
.Hmmm...the ancient greeks buggered young boys and there was
.nothing immoral about it in that culture, yet in western culture
.today this behavior is considered immoral.
I think that is an example of new INFORMATION modifying the details of
the ethic. But the basic ethic (the Golden Rule) hasn't changed.
.Morals exist by social convention, they're no more intrinsic than
.rights.
Mny people think that they are instinctive, and point to similar
behaviour in primates, etc. I tend to agree with them.
.>In fact, the Golden Rule says it all. Except that we
.>arbitrarily deny its application to other species.
.
.Well, morality is arbitrary, so why the surprise?
I don't think so. Only its details. But to be consistent, and knowing
what we do about biology now (e.g. that chimpanzees ane humans are
genetically 98.6% identical), we should give wildlife the same rights
that we have, WHATEVER THEY ARE.
J Michaels
Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
situation I will leave aside, for now.
As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
highly educational and valuable experiences for me. The owl pellets were
acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
off to his horrible fate. And let it be known that most dissection
practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
balance is not disturbed.
As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner plate.
In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom? Just a thought.
Jennifer
LETH'R
J Michaels wrote in message <6jnjc7$t0u$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
Thank you, Jennifer.
For a high school student, you show a remarkable grasp of the situation.
I fully agree with your post.
I wish you well in your future pursuits in the biological sciences.
PM Bowles
On Sun, 17 May 1998, J Michaels wrote:
> Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
> and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
> seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
> I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
> her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
> situation I will leave aside, for now.
> As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> highly educational and valuable experiences for me.
Education should be a two-way process. What did the squid learn?
> acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> off to his horrible fate.
Which merely raises fishing issues...Would you like it if squid decided
to kill and then dissect you? It is irrelevant that the animal was
killed through fishing rather than by scientists; it was killed by
humans and later used for a purpose with no bearing on human survival
(eg, as food) or on squid preservation.
And let it be known that most dissection
> practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
> animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
> balance is not disturbed.
Which country might this be?
> As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
> yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
> scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
> Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
> should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
> forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
> of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
Superior to what? Probably not to a squid, which has a higher rate
of energy consumption to brain size ratio than humans, a larger brain to
body size ratio, and evidence of sapience that can be recognised by
humans. Our brains are different from those of other animals, but they
don't stand out (there are many animals with proportionately larger
brains, many whose brains use more of the oxygen the animal consumes and
a few, some cetaceans, with an equal or higher neuron count); like the
squid's brain, they are as large and efficient as they need to be in
their environment - your brain would die of oxygen deprivation quickly
in a squid's environment, so it could hardly be considered superior.
> our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my14 dinner
plate.
But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the point that their
remains are used frivolously, for purposes which are not necessary for
survival.
> In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
> conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
> their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
> infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
> already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
> future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom? Just a thought.
> Jennifer
The people who suggest that dissection is noticeably damaging to all but
the smallest populations are wrong, I agree, but there is nothing to
appreciate in an animal's innards, and it is far more comforting to know
that the animals in question are busy appreciating life for themselves
rather than being cut up on an operating table - so, there may be no
serious conservation issue involved, but it is still a tasteless,
unnecessary and grisly use of dead animals; where the animals are killed
for the purpose (which does happen, and is the main focus of this
thread), there is simply no justification.
Philip Bowles
Hoover, J.E.
J Michaels wrote:
>
> Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
> and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
> seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
> I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
> her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
> situation I will leave aside, for now.
> As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
> animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
> balance is not disturbed.
How many squid need to be dissected before humans are satisfied they
know what is inside a squid? Once, twice, or one time for every high
school student? Didn't the scientific world already know what you
learned? Do not be deceived, young thing, by the intellectual
sanctimony of "science." Much of what science does is pointless
nonsense.
> As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
> yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
> scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
> Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
> should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
> forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
> of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
> our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner plate.
You have no responsibility to respect and protect your fellow animal.
However, did you ever notice that cows are not trying to enslave you?
Cows have better things to do. They also don't go driving automobiles
into each other at high speeds or poisoning the air. I'm not sure they
agree with you either that humans have brains of superior quality. I
detect in them a certain disdain toward humans.
> In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
> conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
> their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
> infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
> already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
> future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom?
A better thing to do would be to eat it. At least another organism
would benefit from recycling the protein. Since the human species
evolved eating vegetation, doesn't need much meat and derives less
nutrition from meat, it would be better still to let the squid live.
> Just a thought.
> Jennifer
PM Bowles
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Hoover, J.E. wrote:
> J Michaels wrote:
> > In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
> > conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
> > their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
> > infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
> > already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
> > future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom?
>
> A better thing to do would be to eat it. At least another organism
> would benefit from recycling the protein. Since the human species
> evolved eating vegetation, doesn't need much meat and derives less
> nutrition from meat, it would be better still to let the squid live.
Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
biologically adapted to scavenging.
Philip Bowles
Scott Nudds
PM Bowles (pb6...@bris.ac.uk) wrote:
: Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
: as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
: demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
: as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
: an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
: as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
: biologically adapted to scavenging.
Vegetarians who are alive today, would seem to prove this proposition
wrong.
Perhaps Mr. Bowles means to say that vegetarians are zombies... The
walking dead...
LETH'R
Scott Nudds wrote in message <6jskrf$4tk$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>...
>PM Bowles (pb6...@bris.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
>: as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
>: demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
>: as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
>: an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
>: as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
>: biologically adapted to scavenging.
>
> Vegetarians who are alive today, would seem to prove this proposition
>wrong.
>
animal products) to a blood test, you will find them lacking in several
VITAL nutrients that are obtainable only through ingestion of protein
(animal protein).
Warren Fritz
Scott Nudds wrote:
> PM Bowles (pb6...@bris.ac.uk) wrote:
> : Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
> : as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
> : demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
> : as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
> : an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
> : as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
> : biologically adapted to scavenging.
>
> Vegetarians who are alive today, would seem to prove this proposition
> wrong.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Bowles means to say that vegetarians are zombies... The
> walking dead...
Actually they are not "proving" or disproving his statement either way.
Vegetarians to day are people whose ancestors subsisted on meat. Vegetarianism
was and is there own personal choice.
Mr. Bowles is saying that adding meat to the diet (in other words increased
caloric intake) helped man to evolve into its present form.
WHITELEY DAVID
On Tue, 19 May 1998, LETH'R wrote:
> >: Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
> >: as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
> >: demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
> >: as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
> >: an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
> >: as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
> >: biologically adapted to scavenging.
> >
> > Vegetarians who are alive today, would seem to prove this proposition
> >wrong.
> >
> Actually they do not. If you subject a true vegetarian (one who eats no
> animal products) to a blood test, you will find them lacking in several
> VITAL nutrients that are obtainable only through ingestion of protein
> (animal protein).
>
I'm sorry, but this is completely false. Yes, vegans (vegetarians who
consume no animal-derived products including dairy, eggs, honey, etc..) do
have to be careful planning their diet, but they can certainly get all the
necessary nutrients.
To distinguish between animal and plant protein is ridiculous. During
digestion, protein is broken down into its amino acids which have the same
structure no matter where they came from.
All 8 essential amino acids are abundant in plants, and most vitamins
actually more abundant than in meat. The only vitamin that can be hard to
get is B12, but this is found in fermented soy products (e.g. tempeh.) Any
health-conscious vegan knows this and is sure to include B12 sources in
their diet.
You may also argue that plant-derived iron is less accessible than iron in
meat. However, combining vitamin C rich vegetables with iron rich
vegetables (e.g. tomato sauce with spinach) allows the iron to be
absorbed.
I hope this clears up some misconceptions.
Fiona J. currie
Montreal, Quebec
Mike Edgar
In article <35631215...@rapidnet.com>, Warren Fritz
<Fri...@rapidnet.com> writes
>
>
>Scott Nudds wrote:
>
>> PM Bowles (pb6...@bris.ac.uk) wrote:
>> : Very distantly; our closest relatives subsist largely on meat and humans
>> : as we know them have always made use of it; the Boxgrove Man findings
>> : demonstrated a distinct correlation between a decrease in human gut size
>> : as our diet became more dependant on carrion and increased brain size,
>> : an adaption to the higher protein and energy content of meat - humans
>> : as a species simply cannot do without meat any longer as we are
>> : biologically adapted to scavenging.
>>
>> Vegetarians who are alive today, would seem to prove this proposition
>> wrong.
>>
>> walking dead...
>
> Actually they are not "proving" or disproving his statement either way.
>Vegetarians to day are people whose ancestors subsisted on meat. Vegetarianism
>was and is there own personal choice.
>
***************************8
>Mr. Bowles is saying that adding meat to the diet (in other words increased
>caloric intake) helped man to evolve into its present form.
>
...... as fine a justification for veganism and vegetarianism as one
could wish to read.
LETH'R
Yes, mikey, go off and chomp on a few of those defenseless veggies. Perhaps
your brain size will revert back to that of our ancestors.
Oops, sorry, I see you've been doing that already.....and its working!
Reply to <pcosenza*at*gpu.com> Put a "@" where it belongs.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
Jack Handy
I Support P.E.T.A
People Eating Tasty Animals
Mike Vandeman
On Sun, 17 May 1998 17:06:30 -0400, "J Michaels"
<tigg...@spamguard.mindspring.com> wrote:
. As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
.and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
.dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
.owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
.fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
.highly educational and valuable experiences for me. The owl pellets were
.acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
.dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
.and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
.was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
.off to his horrible fate. And let it be known that most dissection
.practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
.animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
.balance is not disturbed.
You missed something. No one is complaining about dissection. We are
complaining about KILLING organisms for frivolous reasons. I see
nothing terribly wrong with dissecting already-dead organisms.
.Jennifer
Warren Fritz
Mike Edgar wrote:
> In article <35631215...@rapidnet.com>, Warren Fritz
> <Fri...@rapidnet.com> writes
> >Scott Nudds wrote:
> >
> > Actually they are not "proving" or disproving his statement either way.
> >Vegetarians to day are people whose ancestors subsisted on meat. Vegetarianism
> >was and is there own personal choice.
>
> >Mr. Bowles is saying that adding meat to the diet (in other words increased
> >caloric intake) helped man to evolve into its present form.
> >
> ...... as fine a justification for veganism and vegetarianism as one
> could wish to read.
How so? Remember this if it wasn't for the increased caloric intake you would NOT
exist. You and all of mankind in all likely hood would be extinct. Look at the
way humans are built. We are not the strongest, able to stay warm easily, tough
hided, not claws or large teeth for protection- our only way to survive and succeed
is to be smarter. Which we are thanks to increased caloric intake FROM eating
MEAT. I'll bet you CAN'T and WON'T "justify" your above comments.
WARREN
Gerry Shaw
<snip due to my newshost not letting me post an article in which there is
more reply text then my text>
The argument about humans evolving into what we are today because we
consumed animal flesh and products seems logical and believable. I doubt it
would have been possible for the human race to produce much of a culture
without a stable supply of food/water and a warm shelter. But... I think we
all agree that we are now smart enough to know what we need to survive and
how to get it without eating animal flesh or their products. It really is
only a matter of time before we evolve again, the planet won't sustain the
Western way of life for the entire world population.
Gerry.
LETH'R
Gerry Shaw wrote in message <6keu4v$m4s$1...@gate.ea.com>...
some others. That, however, has nothing to do with eating meat. Many
eastern cultures eat meat, as do most primitive ones.
Your argument is fatally flawed. You are the product of meat eaters
(actually omnivores, as there is a wealth of evidence to show that early man
ate veggies also, as a fairly large part of his diet).
We are continually evolving, it is not a once and done deal.
And, we don't all agree that we "are now smart enough to know what we need
to survive and how to get along without eating animal flesh". There are
certain nutrients that are available only in meat / meat products.
WHITELEY DAVID
On Tue, 26 May 1998, LETH'R wrote:
> And, we don't all agree that we "are now smart enough to know what we need
> to survive and how to get along without eating animal flesh". There are
> certain nutrients that are available only in meat / meat products.
>
I (and probably others reading this thread) am curious to know which
nutrients are available _only_ in meat/ meat products I have racked my
brain and come up with none. I am vegetarian myself, and did some research
when I made this decision. However, if I am somehow putting my health in
danger, I would really like to know.
Fiona J. Currie
Montreal, Quebec
Cat in Alaska
On Tue, 26 May 1998 10:32:13 -0700, "Gerry Shaw" <gs...@NOSPAM.ea.com>
wrote:
><snip due to my newshost not letting me post an article in which there is
>more reply text then my text>
>
>The argument about humans evolving into what we are today because we
>consumed animal flesh and products seems logical and believable. I doubt it
>would have been possible for the human race to produce much of a culture
>without a stable supply of food/water and a warm shelter. But... I think we
>all agree that we are now smart enough to know what we need to survive and
>how to get it without eating animal flesh or their products. It really is
>only a matter of time before we evolve again, the planet won't sustain the
>Western way of life for the entire world population.
>
>Gerry.
No, unfortunately the human race is not smart enough to "know what we
need to survive and how to get it without eating animal flesh or their
products". It simply is not possible to live in this world without
causing harm or death to something else. Not possible for humans or
non-humans.
Examples: pregnancy tests, the production of insulin for diabetics,
pyrogen testing of IVs and other related hospital products that *must* be
sterile, HIV testing of the blood supply, agricultural farming (from
tilling all the way to market), and *thousands* of other examples.
So the question is... do you have that medic-alert bracelet that say that
you are not to receive anything that uses animals, either in testing or
production? Have you given up you car? Your house? Do you grow all of
your own food, making sure that no animal is harmed, either by the
process of growing it, or by the simple displacement of habitat your
garden would cause?
If not, then you are just another hypocrite.
It is obvious that you are still using electricity, how many animals die
for the production of such per kilowatt hour?
Perhaps you need to look at your life in more detail before making such a
ridiculous claim. Then after looking at your life, look at the lives of
others, in countries that are less developed than your own before making
such pronouncements of the superiority of the human mind.
Unfortunately, we just aren't that damned smart after all....
PM Bowles
On Tue, 26 May 1998, Gerry Shaw wrote:
> <snip due to my newshost not letting me post an article in which there is
> more reply text then my text>
>
> The argument about humans evolving into what we are today because we
> consumed animal flesh and products seems logical and believable. I doubt it
> would have been possible for the human race to produce much of a culture
> without a stable supply of food/water and a warm shelter. But... I think we
> all agree that we are now smart enough to know what we need to survive and
> how to get it without eating animal flesh or their products. It really is
> only a matter of time before we evolve again, the planet won't sustain the
> Western way of life for the entire world population.
Humans are evolving slowly, if at all; evolution is an adaption to an
environment, the result of generations of natural selection, and because
humans adapt their environment to suit their needs rather than the other
way round, the species could well be in evolutionary stasis. As for
turning to a wholly vegetarian diet, this would require our intestines,
appendix etc. to grow in order to gain maximum nutrition from a
vegetarian diet, and our brains would shrink as the energy needed to
keep it going at the current rate would make it inefficient to do so -
essentially, we'd revert to the situation we were in before we began to
consume meat, somewhere before we reached the chimp stage of our
development.
Philip Bowles
LETH'R
Warren Fritz wrote in message <356C239C...@rapidnet.com>...
>
>
>WHITELEY DAVID wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 May 1998, LETH'R wrote:
>>
>> > And, we don't all agree that we "are now smart enough to know what we
need
>> > to survive and how to get along without eating animal flesh". There
are
>> > certain nutrients that are available only in meat / meat products.
>> >
>> I (and probably others reading this thread) am curious to know which
>> nutrients are available _only_ in meat/ meat products I have racked my
>> brain and come up with none. I am vegetarian myself, and did some
research
>> when I made this decision. However, if I am somehow putting my health in
>> danger, I would really like to know.
>
> The nutrients that are only found in meat are essential ammino acids that
are
>in a specific form. These specific forms of ammino acids are in a form
readily
>available and able to be utilized by the human body. Ammino acid
supplements
>are not in the form the human body requires. Ammino accids are the
building
>blocks of all proteins, some are more readily absorbed than others.
Commercial
>protein supplements can not and do not supply all of the forms nessecary.
They
>do contain the required protein ammounts but not all of the protein in that
>amount (if any) is in a form that is able to be utilized by the human body.
>
>
> WARREN
>
>
Thank you Warren, I was trying to find the documentation to support the
above statement. I knew that amino acids and proteins were involved, but
couldn't remember the specifics, and was searching for the info.
Warren Fritz
Warren Fritz
PM Bowles wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 1998, Gerry Shaw wrote:
>
> > But... I think we
> > all agree that we are now smart enough to know what we need to survive and
> > how to get it without eating animal flesh or their products. It really is
> > only a matter of time before we evolve again, the planet won't sustain the
> > Western way of life for the entire world population.
>
> Humans are evolving slowly, if at all; evolution is an adaption to an
> environment, the result of generations of natural selection, and because
> humans adapt their environment to suit their needs rather than the other
> way round, the species could well be in evolutionary stasis. As for
> turning to a wholly vegetarian diet, this would require our intestines,
> appendix etc. to grow in order to gain maximum nutrition from a
> vegetarian diet, and our brains would shrink as the energy needed to
> keep it going at the current rate would make it inefficient to do so -
> essentially, we'd revert to the situation we were in before we began to
> consume meat, somewhere before we reached the chimp stage of our
> development.
I would tend to agree to some extent. One point I would make is this: If we had
evolved or are currently evolving like some AR types want that would mean we would
have to change the human biological mechanism drastically. In other words
internal organs would have to change into other forms. Look at herbivores as an
example, they adapted to the food source available and they developed a
functional cecum or rumen. Does that mean that will happen to human if we would
"evolve" the way AR's would like? I do not belive so, WHY? Mankind would become
extinct before then, because we would not have the brain power and intellect
required to survive. Why wouldn't we have the brain power and intellect? We
would not be able to consume enough calories(ie energy) to power and and maintain
the human mind in its present form.
WARREN
Gerry Shaw
Well I'm almost afraid to respond to this. My last message was not meant to
be taken literally. I guess I should have added a bit more sarcasm.
The point I was trying to make was that it is completely ridiculous to
justify the amount of animals used in food today because we used to eat them
in our past. The planet can't handle it with our population and judging
from waist lines and health problems of many people, either can we.
I'm not saying everyone one should go with out cars power, grow there own
food, be vegan. I'm saying that we could all cut down a whole lot and the
end result would be POSITIVE for human evolution, not negative.
Warren Fritz
PM Bowles wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 1998, J Michaels wrote:
>
> > Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
> > and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
> > seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
> > I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
> > her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
> > situation I will leave aside, for now.
> > As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> > and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> > dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> > owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> > fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> > highly educational and valuable experiences for me.
>
> Education should be a two-way process. What did the squid learn?
>
Why should it be a "a two-way process"?? These are animals driven by stimuli and
behavior – what could they have "learned"? The squid couldn’t have learned a
SINGLE thing.
> > acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> > dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> > and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> > was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> > off to his horrible fate.
>
> Which merely raises fishing issues...Would you like it if squid decided
> to kill and then dissect you? It is irrelevant that the animal was
> killed through fishing rather than by scientists; it was killed by
> humans and later used for a purpose with no bearing on human survival
> (eg, as food) or on squid preservation.
>
Actually if the squid was large enough and had a the opportunity (meaning if it
viewed a human as PREY – which is impossible for a squid but not for other
predators, Ex. sharks, etc...) it would kill and then EAT (in essence a form of
dissection with the only thing "learned’ being that this is edible) a human. Tell
me this: what are scientists and fishermen (or women)?? They are BOTH HUMANS.
In both instances the it DOES have a bearing on human survival. One is utilized
as a food source, the other to further knowledge which may lead to medical
breakthroughs or even greater knowledge on how squid survive (ie. Reproduce, fight
disease, avoid predators, attract mates, etc….) thus adding more knowledge on how
to better preserve them as a species.
> And let it be known that most dissection
> > practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
> > animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
> > balance is not disturbed.
>
> Which country might this be?
>
The US for one.
> > As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
> > yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
> > scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
> > Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
> > should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
> > forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
> > of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
>
> Superior to what? Probably not to a squid, which has a higher rate
> of energy consumption to brain size ratio than humans, a larger brain to
> body size ratio, and evidence of sapience that can be recognised by
> humans. Our brains are different from those of other animals, but they
> don't stand out (there are many animals with proportionately larger
> brains, many whose brains use more of the oxygen the animal consumes and
> a few, some cetaceans, with an equal or higher neuron count); like the
> squid's brain, they are as large and efficient as they need to be in
> their environment - your brain would die of oxygen deprivation quickly
> in a squid's environment, so it could hardly be considered superior.
>
If our brains were not "superior"(ie ability to reason and solve complex problems)
humans would have become extinct thousands (if not millions) of years ago. How do
you explain how we use tools, create tools, etc… How do you explain how
successful mankind has been and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from
"superior" brain function what was it then? Besides man has devised a means to
enter a squids environment and NOT die. I would like to see a squid do that.
> > our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner
> plate.
>
> But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the point that their
> remains are used frivolously, for purposes which are not necessary for
> survival.
>
Tell that to those fighting cancer, HIV, etc.. Because of dissection and other
research you and everyone else is living on average 20.8 years LONGER. That sure
as the hell is some pretty good evidence that it is NECESSARY for human SURVIVAL.
> > In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
> > conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
> > their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
> > infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
> > already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
> > future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom? Just a thought.
>
> The people who suggest that dissection is noticeably damaging to all but
> the smallest populations are wrong, I agree, but there is nothing to
> appreciate in an animal's innards, and it is far more comforting to know
> that the animals in question are busy appreciating life for themselves
> rather than being cut up on an operating table - so, there may be no
> serious conservation issue involved, but it is still a tasteless,
> unnecessary and grisly use of dead animals; where the animals are killed
> for the purpose (which does happen, and is the main focus of this
> thread), there is simply no justification.
The problem in actuality is you don’t see any DIRECT benefit from dissection when
in fact the benefits are still there. Sure students in all reality not going to
"discover" a new organ or other structures in the animal they are dissecting BUT
they are gaining valuable hands on knowledge and experience. You should learn
about HOW students learn and about learning styles. Experience and knowledge that
they CAN NOT get from a textbook or video. The researcher is not going to find
anything immediately but over time and extended research knowledge and new
information is slowly gleaned. Obviously you don’t appreciate the utter
complexity in an "animal's innards" and that I would hazard to guess because you
don’t understand the complexity and interconnections of each system. YOU may not
consider it "tasteless" but it is important and necessary. Heck I consider eating
squid tasteless – to each his/her own.
WARREN
Warren Fritz
Hoover, J.E. wrote:
> J Michaels wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> > As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> > and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> > dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> > owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> > fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> > highly educational and valuable experiences for me. The owl pellets were
> > acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> > dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> > and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> > was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> > off to his horrible fate. And let it be known that most dissection
> > practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
> > animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
> > balance is not disturbed.
>
> How many squid need to be dissected before humans are satisfied they
> know what is inside a squid? Once, twice, or one time for every high
> school student? Didn't the scientific world already know what you
> learned? Do not be deceived, young thing, by the intellectual
> sanctimony of "science." Much of what science does is pointless
> nonsense.
Just because science as a whole knows what is in a squid does not mean that
everyone does. People NEED to see how the structures lie in relation to other
structures, NOT in 2-D from a picture that tells them NOTHING but in real 3-D.
Just beacuse the scientific community knows is pointless the student does not and
THEY are the ones who are learning. This is NOT pointless or without reason. If
I TOLD you what was in a house would that really mean that you knew what was in
the house? How everything looked, felt, appeared in relation to other textures,
colors, shapes, etc.. It would give you some idea but not THE true picture, and
that is what students, scientist, doctors, etc. need to know. How would you like
it if a doctor had NEVER seen a operation, the insides of a human and had only
been TOLD how to perform an appendectomy and YOU were the patient? I don't think
you would like it one bit.
> > As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
> > yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
> > scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
> > Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
> > should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
> > forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
> > of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
> > our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner plate.
>
> You have no responsibility to respect and protect your fellow animal.
> However, did you ever notice that cows are not trying to enslave you?
> Cows have better things to do. They also don't go driving automobiles
> into each other at high speeds or poisoning the air. I'm not sure they
> agree with you either that humans have brains of superior quality. I
> detect in them a certain disdain toward humans.
>
Obviously you haven’t been around bovines very much have you? They do not have
the intelligence (or the physical attributes – ability to grasp and utilize tools,
etc..) to create (cars, etc) let alone "enslave" humanity. I wouldn't call it
disdain, I'd call it ignorance.
> > In conclusion, I would have to say that you must realize that
> > conservation biology has its limits. Certainly animals have a right to
> > their own habitats and to our help, but I wouldn't say that dissection is an
> > infringement on this policy. After all, what better thing to do with an
> > already-dead squid than dissect it and learn something about animals for
> > future reference and appreciation of the animal kingdom?
>
> A better thing to do would be to eat it. At least another organism
> would benefit from recycling the protein. Since the human species
> evolved eating vegetation, doesn't need much meat and derives less
> nutrition from meat, it would be better still to let the squid live.
>
Sounds like you support eating carrion – a practice early man did. Actually
another organism does ultimately benefit from recycling the protein from a dead
squid – bacterium and other micro-organisms. If they wouldn’t we would be up to
our eyeballs literally in dead organisms. Also you are WRONG that humans evolved
by being vegans. The simple FACT is that humans derive more calories and other
ESSENTIAL nutrients from eating meat than by strictly eating vegan. Remember
vegan food is full of components (cellulose, etc.) that the human body does NOT
break down and thus does not utilize. Thus meat is more nutrient dense and more
readily digested and utilized than vegan diets.
WARREN
WHITELEY DAVID
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
> > I (and probably others reading this thread) am curious to know which
> > nutrients are available _only_ in meat/ meat products I have racked my
> > brain and come up with none. I am vegetarian myself, and did some research
> > when I made this decision. However, if I am somehow putting my health in
> > danger, I would really like to know.
>
> The nutrients that are only found in meat are essential ammino acids that are
> in a specific form. These specific forms of ammino acids are in a form
readily
> available and able to be utilized by the human body. Ammino acid supplements
> are not in the form the human body requires. Ammino accids are the building
> blocks of all proteins, some are more readily absorbed than others.
Commercial
> protein supplements can not and do not supply all of the forms
nessecary. They
> do contain the required protein ammounts but not all of the protein in that
> amount (if any) is in a form that is able to be utilized by the human body.
>
>
> WARREN
I don't think we need to be talking about protein supplements. Vegetarians
can get all the necessary protein through their normal diet.
Of the 22 necessary amino acids, there are 8 that cannot be produced by
our bodies. The eight essential amino acids are:
tryptophan leucine
isoleucine lysine
valine threonine
sulfur-containing amino acids
aromatic amino acids
Children also need Histidine.
These amino acids must be eaten together in the right proportions. All
these amino acids are contained in plants, though some food types are
deficient in one or another. Therefore vegetarians must eat complimentary
protein sources to get the right proportions of amino acids. For instance,
legumes+seeds, legumes+grains, and for non-vegans grains+milk products.
Getting these combinations is not something vegetarians really have to
think about every day since most common vegetarian meals will naturally
contain the right plant groups.
As far as usability of protein, I'm looking at a U.S.D.A. chart that
shows that red meat and poultry have about the same protein usability as
tofu, soybeans, brown rice, and oats. Protein in cheese is slightly more
usable, fish and milk even more, and the top is eggs. The same chart
shows % protein (in case you are concerned with quantity.) Soybeansя are
highest (40%), then parmesan cheese, then chicken, etc. Beef and pork are
the same as peanuts and sunflower seeds (25-30%.) You can see why soy is
so popular!
As I said, I did some research into this and I know how to get all the
protein I need. (If anything, my own diet contains too much protein and I
should really try to get more calories from carbohydrates.) Is there any
other reason I might be withering away?
Fiona J. Currie
Khnu...@aol.com
In article <6khimr$7dl$1...@gate.ea.com>,
nutritian and protein count to rare, red meat. To say you are a vegan to save
the
planet is just ridiculous vegan lies and myth. There is nothing more
healthier than
a high meat -fat/protein diet despite whatever garbage about being kind to
animals
and that your saving the planet.
There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
Besides,
vegetable are loaded with toxic proteins. Don’t believe me? Try eating lots
of
spinach, and you’ll end up in the hospital with oxalic poisoning. Many people
are deathly allergic to peanuts and other legumes. And there are many with
wheat and
soybean allergies. Why eat this garbage?
The human body was developed eating a high fat/protein diet. The body can
survive
very well without the consumption of carbohydrates. The pancreas will provide
whatever
insulin is necessary. But you body will have major problems if it’s fat and
protein
deprived. Folks, they’ve been fooling you. It’s really the carbs that turn
to fat. Since
the body provides no mechanism to turn ingested fat to fat. But that is
indeed one of
the functions of insulin; to store dietary carbs that are not used in adipose
tissue as fat.
The idea that carbs are energy food is not accurate, since it is actually the
rush of the
insulin that one feels that provides the burst of energy, but it does many
other terrible things
which lead to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
PM Bowles
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
>
>
> PM Bowles wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 1998, J Michaels wrote:
> >
> > > Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
> > > and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
> > > seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
> > > I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
> > > her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
> > > situation I will leave aside, for now.
> > > As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> > > and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> > > dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> > > owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> > > fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> > > highly educational and valuable experiences for me.
> >
> > Education should be a two-way process. What did the squid learn?
> >
>
> Why should it be a "a two-way process"?? These are animals driven by stimuli and
> behavior – what could they have "learned"? The squid couldn’t have learned a
> SINGLE thing.
We are animals driven by stimuli and behaviour as well, and we learn
from the squid's remains, however irrelevant the acquired knowledge may
be.
> > > acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> > > dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> > > and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> > > was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> > > off to his horrible fate.
> >
> > Which merely raises fishing issues...Would you like it if squid decided
> > to kill and then dissect you? It is irrelevant that the animal was
> > killed through fishing rather than by scientists; it was killed by
> > humans and later used for a purpose with no bearing on human survival
> > (eg, as food) or on squid preservation.
> >
>
>
>
> Actually if the squid was large enough and had a the opportunity (meaning if it
> viewed a human as PREY – which is impossible for a squid but not for other
> predators, Ex. sharks, etc...) it would kill and then EAT (in essence a form of
> dissection with the only thing "learned’ being that this is edible) a human. Tell
> me this: what are scientists and fishermen (or women)?? They are BOTH HUMANS.
> In both instances the it DOES have a bearing on human survival. One is utilized
> as a food source, the other to further knowledge which may lead to medical
> breakthroughs or even greater knowledge on how squid survive (ie. Reproduce, fight
> disease, avoid predators, attract mates, etc….) thus adding more knowledge on how
> to better preserve them as a species.
Yes, in all our dissections we have learned this important fact about
squid survival - that a squid which is cut up in a lab can't survive.
Why do we need medical knowledge? Other species manage well enough
without medication.
> > > As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
> > > yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
> > > scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
> > > Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
> > > should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
> > > forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
> > > of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
> >
> > Superior to what? Probably not to a squid, which has a higher rate
> > of energy consumption to brain size ratio than humans, a larger brain to
> > body size ratio, and evidence of sapience that can be recognised by
> > humans. Our brains are different from those of other animals, but they
> > don't stand out (there are many animals with proportionately larger
> > brains, many whose brains use more of the oxygen the animal consumes and
> > a few, some cetaceans, with an equal or higher neuron count); like the
> > squid's brain, they are as large and efficient as they need to be in
> > their environment - your brain would die of oxygen deprivation quickly
> > in a squid's environment, so it could hardly be considered superior.
> >
>
> If our brains were not "superior"(ie ability to reason and solve complex problems)
> humans would have become extinct thousands (if not millions) of years ago. How do
> you explain how we use tools, create tools, etc… How do you explain how
> successful mankind has been and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from
> "superior" brain function what was it then? Besides man has devised a means to
> enter a squids environment and NOT die. I would like to see a squid do that.
Squid can travel into a squid's environment and not die. :-) Humans are
just one of many tool-using species, distinguished priomarily by our
reliance on tool use. All animals can reason on at least the most basic
level (I'm hungry, therefore I should find food) and many can do much
more, including the cephalopods (there was one instance in which an
octopus encountering an unfamiliar object, in this case a pipeline of
some sort with a cover lying on the ground near the entrance, took one
look at the situation and grabbed the cover by its handle, pulling
itself into the pipe backwards until the entrance was closed. This
octopus must have been able to accurately judge that the cover would
fit, and also that by grabbing the cover's handle rather than the rim it
wouldn't get its tentacles caught, in its head, and must also have
reasoned that this would be a good place to wait in ambush, suggesting
that it could understand what its prey might see if they passed by). The
cephalopods don't need to make tools because they are biologically
equipped to deal with life as it is; humans aren't. This is no more
indicative of any superior ability to reason than a termite mound, a
chimp's stick or a bird's nest, however.
> > > our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner
> > plate. > > But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the
> point that their > remains are used frivolously, for purposes which
> are not necessary for > survival. >
>
> Tell that to those fighting cancer, HIV, etc.. Because of dissection and other
> research you and everyone else is living on average 20.8 years LONGER. That sure
> as the hell is some pretty good evidence that it is NECESSARY for human SURVIVAL.
Squid don't get either disease. Why do we need to live 20 years longer?
Those years are wasted, after all, since we are designed to live only 50
or 60 years; after that, the body has deteriorated to such an extent
that there is no biological incentive for its siurvival - increased
human lifespan has done nothing but increase the period of useless old
age.
Philip Bowles
Warren Fritz
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 1998 17:06:30 -0400, "J Michaels"
> <tigg...@spamguard.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> . As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
> .and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
> .dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
> .owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
> .fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
> .highly educational and valuable experiences for me. The owl pellets were
> .acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
> .dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
> .and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
> .was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
> .off to his horrible fate. And let it be known that most dissection
> .practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
> .animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
> .balance is not disturbed.
>
> You missed something. No one is complaining about dissection. We are
> complaining about KILLING organisms for frivolous reasons. I see
> nothing terribly wrong with dissecting already-dead organisms.
YOU missed something Mikey. Dissection is NOT frivolous. It has a purpose, a VERY VALID purpose. Also it does make it easier to
dissect already dead organisms, because all dissected animals are already dead when they are dissected. You started out this thread by
claiming that because of dissection animal numbers are being reduced, etc..... Why have you changed your arguement? I'll bet it is
because you may have realized that when FACTS were presented to you, your arguement had no validity. Now your trying for the emotional
angle. The facts are still the same and no matter what angle you try to come at this subject the facts will always be there.
WARREN
Penmac
That's what I am trying to say Gerry, And I can never get the point across,
even where it makes since to me. Thanks.
Gerry Shaw <gs...@NOSPAM.ea.com> wrote in article
<6khimr$7dl$1...@gate.ea.com>...
Scott Nudds
Warren Fritz wrote:
: How so? Remember this if it wasn't for the increased caloric intake you
: would NOT exist.
Why not? Monkeys rarely eat meat. Gorillas are vegetarians. It
seems to me that they survived history.
Why wouldn't man?
--
<---->
Warren Fritz
PM Bowles wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
>
> > PM Bowles wrote:
<SNIP>
> > > Education should be a two-way process. What did the squid learn?
> > >
> > Why should it be a "a two-way process"?? These are animals driven by stimuli and
> > behavior – what could they have "learned"? The squid couldn’t have learned a
> > SINGLE thing.
>
> We are animals driven by stimuli and behaviour as well, and we learn
> from the squid's remains, however irrelevant the acquired knowledge may
> be.
Now why do you say it is irrelevant? Just because YOU do not see an immediate benefit?
The benefit is still there.
<SNIP>
> > >
> > > Would you like it if squid decided to kill and then dissect you? It is irrelevant
> that the > >animal was killed through fishing rather than by scientists; it was killed
> by
> > > humans and later used for a purpose with no bearing on human survival
> > > (eg, as food) or on squid preservation.
> > >
> > Actually if the squid was large enough and had a the opportunity (meaning if it
> > viewed a human as PREY – which is impossible for a squid but not for other
> > predators, Ex. sharks, etc...) it would kill and then EAT (in essence a form of
> > dissection with the only thing "learned’ being that this is edible) a human. Tell
> > me this: what are scientists and fishermen (or women)?? They are BOTH HUMANS.
> > In both instances it DOES have a bearing on human survival. One is utilized
> > as a food source, the other to further knowledge which may lead to medical
> > breakthroughs or even greater knowledge on how squid survive (ie. Reproduce, fight
> > disease, avoid predators, attract mates, etc….) thus adding more knowledge on how
> > to better preserve them as a species.
>
> Yes, in all our dissections we have learned this important fact about
> squid survival - that a squid which is cut up in a lab can't survive.
> Why do we need medical knowledge? Other species manage well enough
> without medication.
Why do we need medical knowledge? That is kind of like asking why do humans need to
breath - to survive and to enhance the quality of life for humans as well as acquire
knowledge (non-medical) to learn better how nature works and how to better manage and
protect it. As for how they manage without medication - it is not that they have a
choice in the matter. They do not have the knowledge, skills or resources thus they
HAVE to live (and DIE) without "medication".
<SNIP>
> > If our brains were not "superior"(ie ability to reason and solve complex problems)
> > humans would have become extinct thousands (if not millions) of years ago. How do
> > you explain how we use tools, create tools, etc… How do you explain how
> > successful mankind has been and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from
> > "superior" brain function what was it then? Besides man has devised a means to
> > enter a squids environment and NOT die. I would like to see a squid do that.
>
> Squid can travel into a squid's environment and not die. :-)
So. A human can travel in a human's environment and not die - so what?
> Humans are
> just one of many tool-using species, distinguished priomarily by our
> reliance on tool use. All animals can reason on at least the most basic
> level (I'm hungry, therefore I should find food) and many can do much
> more, including the cephalopods (there was one instance..
<SNIP>
> The cephalopods don't need to make tools because they are biologically
> equipped to deal with life as it is; humans aren't. This is no more indicative of any
> superior ability to reason than a termite mound, a chimp's stick or a bird's nest,
> however.
>
I also indicated an ability to solve complex problems. Besides you didn't give your
opinions on the questions I asked: How do you explain how successful mankind has been
and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from "superior" brain function what was it
then?
I would like to hear your thoughts.
> > But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the
> > point that their remains are used frivolously, for purposes which
> > are not necessary for survival.
> >
> > Tell that to those fighting cancer, HIV, etc.. Because of dissection and other
> > research you and everyone else is living on average 20.8 years LONGER. That sure
> > as the hell is some pretty good evidence that it is NECESSARY for human >SURVIVAL.
>
> Squid don't get either disease.
Exactly!! Which is one reason many study them. To try to find out WHY they are not
afflicted. Another reason they are dissected is that students have to learn about the
less "complex" (structurally that is) animals before learning about more and more
complex animals. In other words they need a strong knowledge base to begin with.
> Why do we need to live 20 years longer?
> Those years are wasted, after all, since we are designed to live only 50
> or 60 years; after that, the body has deteriorated to such an extent
> that there is no biological incentive for its siurvival - increased
> human lifespan has done nothing but increase the period of useless old
> age.
Actually those years are NOT wasted. My Grandparents (all of whom are well into their
70's and 80's) have and are still contributing to society in MANY different ways. As
for the human body being designed for 50 - 60 years that is not true. Tell me this iff
you live to say 69 are you going to end your life (even if you are happy and still
contributing to society) when you turn 70? I'll bet you won't. NO ONE wants to die
except those that are mentally deranged in some way. As for why live 20 years longer-
to spend that much more time with friends, family and loved ones. That in itself is a
pretty damned good reason, plus there are many many more reasons.
WARREN
PM Bowles
It would - in a form which more closely resembled a gorilla or
vegetarian monkey than the current chimp-like species.
Philip Bowles
PM Bowles
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
>
>
> PM Bowles wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
> >
> > > PM Bowles wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
And the funny thing is, they manage it. Actually, many animals do
practice a kind of primitive herb lore - dogs and wolves will often eat
grass and other plants in order to reinforce their immune systems
against certain illnesses. This works too, without the need to dissect
anything.
> <SNIP>
>
> > > If our brains were not "superior"(ie ability to reason and solve complex problems)
> > > humans would have become extinct thousands (if not millions) of years ago. How do
> > > you explain how we use tools, create tools, etc… How do you explain how
> > > successful mankind has been and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from
> > > "superior" brain function what was it then? Besides man has devised a means to
> > > enter a squids environment and NOT die. I would like to see a squid do that.
> >
> > Squid can travel into a squid's environment and not die. :-)
>
> So. A human can travel in a human's environment and not die - so what?
>
I was merely remarking on your comment that, while a human can go into a
squid's environment and survive, a squid cannot do the same - a somewhat
ambiguous claim.
> > Humans are
> > just one of many tool-using species, distinguished priomarily by our
> > reliance on tool use. All animals can reason on at least the most basic
> > level (I'm hungry, therefore I should find food) and many can do much
> > more, including the cephalopods (there was one instance..
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > The cephalopods don't need to make tools because they are biologically
> > equipped to deal with life as it is; humans aren't. This is no more indicative of any
> > superior ability to reason than a termite mound, a chimp's stick or a bird's nest,
> > however.
> >
>
> I also indicated an ability to solve complex problems. Besides you didn't give your
> opinions on the questions I asked: How do you explain how successful mankind has been
> and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from "superior" brain function what was it
> then?
> I would like to hear your thoughts.
Discovering how to hide in a piece of technology and operate that
technology after a fashion as the octopus did is an example of complex
problem-solving. So is deciding to ambush a rival band, as some chimps
do, or looking at food on the end of a string and working out how to
pull the string up and hold it before performing the task (ravens), or
washing potatoes to stave off infection (Japanese macaques) etc. etc.
Many of the more successful species in the world, such as termites,
ants and cockroaches, all of which are far more successful than humans,
do not spend time solving complex problems (unlike humans, they don't
create situations for themselves where complex problems arise) or
using tools. Strange that the most successful species in the world are
all vermin...
>
>
> > > But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the
> > > point that their remains are used frivolously, for purposes which
> > > are not necessary for survival.
> > >
> > > Tell that to those fighting cancer, HIV, etc.. Because of dissection and other
> > > research you and everyone else is living on average 20.8 years LONGER. That sure
> > > as the hell is some pretty good evidence that it is NECESSARY for human >SURVIVAL.
> >
> > Squid don't get either disease.
>
> Exactly!! Which is one reason many study them. To try to find out WHY they are not
> afflicted. Another reason they are dissected is that students have to learn about the
> less "complex" (structurally that is) animals before learning about more and more
> complex animals. In other words they need a strong knowledge base to begin with.
Nonsense; HIV has been identified only in mammals and studying other
classes of life, especially invertebrate life, can have no practical
application. Canacer also arises from vertebrate physiology, as there
are no apparent cases in invertebrate species, and most serious
medical research, especially regarding cancer, focuses on animals which
can be infected with the disease and which can therefore be used as a
'test-bed' for various treatments. There is also the fact that a lot of
cancer research uses no animals at all; since it is known what cancers
are, many advances used to destroy them are based on theory rather than
practice.
> > Why do we need to live 20 years longer?
> > Those years are wasted, after all, since we are designed to live only 50
> > or 60 years; after that, the body has deteriorated to such an extent
> > that there is no biological incentive for its siurvival - increased
> > human lifespan has done nothing but increase the period of useless old
> > age.
>
> Actually those years are NOT wasted. My Grandparents (all of whom are well into their
> 70's and 80's) have and are still contributing to society in MANY different ways. As
> for the human body being designed for 50 - 60 years that is not true. Tell me this iff
> you live to say 69 are you going to end your life (even if you are happy and still
> contributing to society) when you turn 70? I'll bet you won't. NO ONE wants to die
> except those that are mentally deranged in some way. As for why live 20 years longer-
> to spend that much more time with friends, family and loved ones. That in itself is a
> pretty damned good reason, plus there are many many more reasons.
Hardly sufficient reasons to justify the deaths of the individual
animals involved in the research; even today very few people who reach
the age of 70 are in healthy enough condition to contribute to society
in any meaningful fashion. As New Scientist reports this week, there is
a very good evolutionary reason for this - quite simply, the number of
individuals surviving to such ages is so small, or at least has been,
that there is no evolutionary drive to stop the deterioration of the
body past a certain point or to make the body more efficient at greater
ages. Consequently, we are currently unnaturally extending a lifespan
beyond the healthy evolutionary limits, causing more health problems,
especially chronic ones, which require more money and more medical
treatment which would be better spent serving the needs of the more
productive members of society. It's like letting these people live on
life support machines after they would naturally have died.
Philip Bowles
Mike Vandeman
On Wed, 27 May 1998 08:30:53 -0600, Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com>
wrote:
.
.
.WHITELEY DAVID wrote:
.
.> On Tue, 26 May 1998, LETH'R wrote:
.>
.> > And, we don't all agree that we "are now smart enough to know what we need
.> > to survive and how to get along without eating animal flesh". There are
.> > certain nutrients that are available only in meat / meat products.
.> >
.> I (and probably others reading this thread) am curious to know which
.> nutrients are available _only_ in meat/ meat products I have racked my
.> brain and come up with none. I am vegetarian myself, and did some research
.> when I made this decision. However, if I am somehow putting my health in
.> danger, I would really like to know.
.
. The nutrients that are only found in meat are essential ammino acids that are
.in a specific form. These specific forms of ammino acids are in a form readily
.available and able to be utilized by the human body. Ammino acid supplements
.are not in the form the human body requires. Ammino accids are the building
.blocks of all proteins, some are more readily absorbed than others. Commercial
.protein supplements can not and do not supply all of the forms nessecary. They
.do contain the required protein ammounts but not all of the protein in that
.amount (if any) is in a form that is able to be utilized by the human body.
You had better be SPECIFIC, because what you are saying is not true.
ALL of the essential amino acids are present in plants.
Mike Vandeman
On Wed, 27 May 1998 15:27:24 -0600, Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com>
wrote:
.
.
.PM Bowles wrote:
.
.> On Sun, 17 May 1998, J Michaels wrote:
.>
.> > Having read a decent sampling of this string, I couldn't help but butt in
.> > and offer this opinion to the liberalists and animal-rights activists that
.> > seem to be having an absolutely pointless fit in this string. The fact that
.> > I am ashamed that any serious scientist or animal lover would waste his or
.> > her time on a newsgroup when their defenses are more needed in a real-life
.> > situation I will leave aside, for now.
.> > As a student at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
.> > and biology enthusiast, I would hardly consider my experience with
.> > dissection an infringement upon Nature's fine balance. I dissected my first
.> > owl pellet in fourth grade, and have since done five more owl pellets, a
.> > fetal pig and a squid amongst other things. All of which, I must say, were
.> > highly educational and valuable experiences for me.
.>
.> Education should be a two-way process. What did the squid learn?
.>
.
.Why should it be a "a two-way process"?? These are animals driven by stimuli and
.behavior – what could they have "learned"? The squid couldn’t have learned a
.SINGLE thing.
It is a myth that animals can't learn. ALL animals can learn. See
Donald Griffin's _Animal Thinking_.
.> > acquired from the woods, and certainly an owl doesn't mind if you want to
.> > dissect his vomit. The fetal pig came from the body of a slaughtered hog,
.> > and if it hadn't been removed it would have been eaten anyway. The squid
.> > was acquired from a local fish market, hence the squid was already dead and
.> > off to his horrible fate.
.>
.> Which merely raises fishing issues...Would you like it if squid decided
.> to kill and then dissect you? It is irrelevant that the animal was
.> killed through fishing rather than by scientists; it was killed by
.> humans and later used for a purpose with no bearing on human survival
.> (eg, as food) or on squid preservation.
.>
.
.
.
.Actually if the squid was large enough and had a the opportunity (meaning if it
.viewed a human as PREY – which is impossible for a squid but not for other
.predators, Ex. sharks, etc...) it would kill and then EAT (in essence a form of
.dissection with the only thing "learned’ being that this is edible) a human. Tell
.me this: what are scientists and fishermen (or women)?? They are BOTH HUMANS.
.In both instances the it DOES have a bearing on human survival. One is utilized
.as a food source, the other to further knowledge which may lead to medical
.breakthroughs or even greater knowledge on how squid survive (ie. Reproduce, fight
.disease, avoid predators, attract mates, etc….) thus adding more knowledge on how
.to better preserve them as a species.
Show us where this knowledge has ever been used to preserve squid as a
species. Mostly, we do things just to benefit humans (e.g. learn how
to catch more squid).
.> And let it be known that most dissection
.> > practices in this country, through the reputable catalogs, acquire their
.> > animals through similar sources or farm their own animals so that Nature's
.> > balance is not disturbed.
.>
.> Which country might this be?
.>
.
.The US for one.
.
.
.
.> > As for this "animals have just as many rights as people" nonsense, give
.> > yourself a second to think on that. Might I remind you all of a certain
.> > scientist that we all know (if not, necessarily love) that thought up
.> > Natural Selection? If we happen to fall at the top of the food chain,
.> > should we fall to our knees and beg the rest of the animal kingdom to
.> > forgive us our position? Certainly not. While as thinking, concious beings
.> > of superior brain quality we have the responsibility to respect and protect
.>
.> Superior to what? Probably not to a squid, which has a higher rate
.> of energy consumption to brain size ratio than humans, a larger brain to
.> body size ratio, and evidence of sapience that can be recognised by
.> humans. Our brains are different from those of other animals, but they
.> don't stand out (there are many animals with proportionately larger
.> brains, many whose brains use more of the oxygen the animal consumes and
.> a few, some cetaceans, with an equal or higher neuron count); like the
.> squid's brain, they are as large and efficient as they need to be in
.> their environment - your brain would die of oxygen deprivation quickly
.> in a squid's environment, so it could hardly be considered superior.
.>
.
.If our brains were not "superior"(ie ability to reason and solve complex problems)
.humans would have become extinct thousands (if not millions) of years ago. How do
.you explain how we use tools, create tools, etc…
So do animals. Chimps, for example, create and use tools.
How do you explain how
.successful mankind has been and continues to be a success?? If it wasn’t from
."superior" brain function what was it then? Besides man has devised a means to
.enter a squids environment and NOT die. I would like to see a squid do that.
.
.
.
.> > our fellow animal, I refuse to apologize to the steak on my dinner
.> plate.
.>
.> But dissected animals aren't eaten; it is rather the point that their
.> remains are used frivolously, for purposes which are not necessary for
.> survival.
.>
.
.Tell that to those fighting cancer, HIV, etc.. Because of dissection and other
.research you and everyone else is living on average 20.8 years LONGER. That sure
.as the hell is some pretty good evidence that it is NECESSARY for human SURVIVAL.
Dissection may be necessary, but KILLING for the purpose of dissection
is not.
Mike Vandeman
On Thu, 28 May 1998 16:20:50 GMT, Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
.In article <6khimr$7dl$1...@gate.ea.com>,
. "Gerry Shaw" <gs...@NOSPAM.ea.com> wrote:
.>
.> Well I'm almost afraid to respond to this. My last message was not meant to
.> be taken literally. I guess I should have added a bit more sarcasm.
.>
.> The point I was trying to make was that it is completely ridiculous to
.> justify the amount of animals used in food today because we used to eat them
.> in our past. The planet can't handle it with our population and judging
.> from waist lines and health problems of many people, either can we.
.>
.> I'm not saying everyone one should go with out cars power, grow there own
.> food, be vegan. I'm saying that we could all cut down a whole lot and the
.> end result would be POSITIVE for human evolution, not negative.
.>
.>
.More Vegetarian lies and myths. Name me one vegetable that has a comparable
.nutritian and protein count to rare, red meat.
Why does it have to be ONE food? Name ONE animal that has the
nutritional value of an orange?! So what???
To say you are a vegan to save
.the
.planet is just ridiculous vegan lies and myth. There is nothing more
.healthier than
.a high meat -fat/protein diet despite whatever garbage about being kind to
.animals
.and that your saving the planet.
.
.There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
Try that diet and see how long you survive! :) Remember the limeys? :)
Mike Vandeman
On Thu, 28 May 1998 09:07:49 -0600, Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com>
wrote:
.> You missed something. No one is complaining about dissection. We are
.> complaining about KILLING organisms for frivolous reasons. I see
.> nothing terribly wrong with dissecting already-dead organisms.
.
.
.YOU missed something Mikey. Dissection is NOT frivolous.
Yes it is, because it is not necessary for survival. It is not
important enough to justify killing.
It has a purpose, a VERY VALID purpose.
That is a myth. Not every killing of an organism for dissection serves
a valid purpose. Most of the students doing it are just satisfying a
requirement, and don;t really care what is inside, e.g., a squid.
Also it does make it easier to
.dissect already dead organisms, because all dissected animals are already dead when they are dissected.
So what? That doesn't imply that WE have to kill them!
You started out this thread by
.claiming that because of dissection animal numbers are being reduced, etc..... Why have you changed your arguement?
I haven't. I said that it isn't NECESSARY to kill in order to dissect.
noone...@noemail.com
On Sat, 30 May 1998 14:36:51 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 1998 16:20:50 GMT, Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>
>.In article <6khimr$7dl$1...@gate.ea.com>,
>. "Gerry Shaw" <gs...@NOSPAM.ea.com> wrote:
>.>
>.> Well I'm almost afraid to respond to this. My last message was not meant to
>.> be taken literally. I guess I should have added a bit more sarcasm.
>.>
>.> The point I was trying to make was that it is completely ridiculous to
>.> justify the amount of animals used in food today because we used to eat them
>.> in our past. The planet can't handle it with our population and judging
>.> from waist lines and health problems of many people, either can we.
>.>
>.> I'm not saying everyone one should go with out cars power, grow there own
>.> food, be vegan. I'm saying that we could all cut down a whole lot and the
>.> end result would be POSITIVE for human evolution, not negative.
>.>
>.>
>.More Vegetarian lies and myths. Name me one vegetable that has a comparable
>.nutritian and protein count to rare, red meat.
>
>Why does it have to be ONE food? Name ONE animal that has the
>nutritional value of an orange?! So what???
Blackfish is better... only thing that the orange beats it in is Vit.C...
but then your body would die of fat starvation on a diet of oranges.
100 Gram Orange/ 100 Gram Blackfish /100 Gram Willow
Calories 47 80 120
Protein 0.94 gr. 15.6 gr. 4.55
Fats 0.063gr. 1.4 gr. 1.4
Carbohydrates 11.75 gr. 1.4 gr. 23.8
Calcium 40 mg 720 mg 408
Iron 0.1 mg 7.02 mg . 2.7
Vitamin A 205 IU 1200 IU 1870
Thiamine 0.087mg 0.09 mg 0.9
Riboflavin 0.04 mg 0.2.89 mg 0.187
Niacin 0.282mg 2.4 mg 2.4
vitamin C 53.2mg 16. mg 240
Next time pick Willow leaves Mike... they've got oranges beat hands-down
and are great for a headache... but go light on 'em for fear of stomach
distress... oh, and it's an aquired taste, btw, not nearly as sweet as
oranges but they'll darn sure help keep you alive in a pinch.
>
> To say you are a vegan to save
>.the
>.planet is just ridiculous vegan lies and myth. There is nothing more
>.healthier than
>.a high meat -fat/protein diet despite whatever garbage about being kind to
>.animals
>.and that your saving the planet.
>.
>.There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
>
>Try that diet and see how long you survive! :) Remember the limeys? :)
I don't think that one's going to be around too long... sounds like Khnum
is a heart attack in waiting.
PM Bowles
On 31 May 1998, Jim B. Powlesland wrote:
> In article <6km192$1...@james.hwcn.org>,
> Scott Nudds <af...@james.hwcn.org> wrote:
>
> >> Why not? Monkeys rarely eat meat. Gorillas are vegetarians. It
> >> seems to me that they survived history.
Who studied chimps, not monkeys; and yes, chimps do hunt and kill
monkeys and red colobus are considered something of a delicacy.
Philip Bowles
Khnu...@aol.com
In article <357018c...@news.pacbell.net>,
> .There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
>
> Try that diet and see how long you survive! :) Remember the limeys? :)
>
I have a friend who's eaten this way for over 40 years
and is in excellent shape in his mid-60's
I myself have been eating this way for 5 months
and have lost considerable weight, and am the
healthiest I've been in years.
Do a web search on LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIETS!!!
See for yourself. The body will survive quite
nicely on fat/protein .
Khnu...@aol.com
In article <3571195c...@news.newsguy.com>,
noone...@noemail.com wrote:
>
> Blackfish is better... only thing that the orange beats it in is Vit.C...
> but then your body would die of fat starvation on a diet of oranges.
Actually, red rare meat will provide a nutrient
similiar to vitamin C. Thus, eskimos never get
Vitamin C defeciencies like scurvy.
> >
> > To say you are a vegan to save
> >.the
> >.planet is just ridiculous vegan lies and myth. There is nothing more
> >.healthier than
> >.a high meat -fat/protein diet despite whatever garbage about being kind to
> >.animals
> >.and that your saving the planet.
> >.
> >.There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
> >
> >Try that diet and see how long you survive! :) Remember the limeys? :)
>
> I don't think that one's going to be around too long... sounds like Khnum
> is a heart attack in waiting.
>
Actually, heart disease is a result of a high-carb
diet. Insulin from high carb diets will result in
stored excess bodyfat, as carbs are what really
put on the weight. Insulin increases the LDL cholesterol
and thus increased the chance of arterial plaque.
and as you get older, the body becomes more and more
insulin resistant.
Carbs, even the complex ones are the real precursors
to heart disease.
Cat in Alaska
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 17:26:48 GMT, Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <3571195c...@news.newsguy.com>,
> noone...@noemail.com wrote:
>>
>> Blackfish is better... only thing that the orange beats it in is Vit.C...
>> but then your body would die of fat starvation on a diet of oranges.
>
>Actually, red rare meat will provide a nutrient
>similiar to vitamin C. Thus, eskimos never get
>Vitamin C defeciencies like scurvy.
Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C from
other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves, sedum roseum,
sourdock, cloudberries, and seaweeds such as Alaria and Laminaria (as
well as predigested material from animal stomachs.
<snip>
>Actually, heart disease is a result of a high-carb
>diet. Insulin from high carb diets will result in
>stored excess bodyfat, as carbs are what really
>put on the weight. Insulin increases the LDL cholesterol
>and thus increased the chance of arterial plaque.
>and as you get older, the body becomes more and more
>insulin resistant.
>
>Carbs, even the complex ones are the real precursors
>to heart disease.
Citation, please?
Cat in Alaska
noe...@noemail.com
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 17:18:47 GMT, Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <357018c...@news.pacbell.net>,
> mjv...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Why does it have to be ONE food? Name ONE animal that has the
>> .
>> .There is nothing you need outside of meat, eggs, cheese and heavy cream.
>>
>> Try that diet and see how long you survive! :) Remember the limeys? :)
>>
>
>I have a friend who's eaten this way for over 40 years
>and is in excellent shape in his mid-60's
>I myself have been eating this way for 5 months
>and have lost considerable weight, and am the
>healthiest I've been in years.
>
>Do a web search on LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIETS!!!
>See for yourself. The body will survive quite
>nicely on fat/protein .
Not if you're a diabetic it won't.
You are a heart attack waiting to happen, as is your friend.
Khnum369
Oh, and about the "not if your diabetic" post-
That is exactly what my diet is. A diabetic diet, when that allows zero sugar
ie carbohydrates. Comments like that demonstrate you should learn more about
diet, health, and body chemistry and metabolism.
Khnum369
>out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com (Cat in Alaska)
>Date: Mon, Jun 1, 1998 14:05 EDT
>Message-id: <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>
>Citation, please?
>
>Cat in Alaska
Well, you will find almost no information coming from the mainstream media
about this diet. But I would recommend Protein Power by the Drs Eades, Dr
Atkins New Diet Revolution, and even Barry Sears' The Zone.
For web information check out these sites to find more information on Low-Carb
High Fat/Protein diets and research...
http://www.syndicomm.com/lowfat.html
The World's Biggest Fad Diet
http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/
The Paleolithic Diet Page
http://www.mountain-inter.net/~magnuson/
STONE and SPEAR Lowcarb Support Groups
This one especially has many links to research and information
at the bottom of the site.
Warren Fritz
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 1998 08:30:53 -0600, Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> .
> . The nutrients that are only found in meat are essential ammino acids that are
> .in a specific form. These specific forms of ammino acids are in a form readily
> .available and able to be utilized by the human body. Ammino acid supplements
> .are not in the form the human body requires. Ammino accids are the building
> .blocks of all proteins, some are more readily absorbed than others. Commercial
> .protein supplements can not and do not supply all of the forms nessecary. They
> .do contain the required protein ammounts but not all of the protein in that
> .amount (if any) is in a form that is able to be utilized by the human body.
>
> You had better be SPECIFIC, because what you are saying is not true.
> ALL of the essential amino acids are present in plants.
Hey Mikey READ (you can read can't you?) and comprehend what I said. I said that SPECIFIC FORMS of ammino acids are only found in
meat. If you would have any grasp on chemistry (especially biochemistry) you would know this. Sure all of the ammino acid types are
pressent but not all of the types are in a form that the human body can readily use. Thus not all of the nutrional needs are being met
via plant material (or supplement) intake. Also other problems can occur from "overeating" of certain types of plant protiens. Next
time show some PROOF before you accuse someone of lying.
WARREN
Khnum369
>powl...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
>Date: Tue, Jun 2, 1998 15:03 EDT
>Message-id: <6l1iap$a...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
>
>In article <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C from
>>other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves, sedum roseum,
>
>also be obtained from organ meats such as heart and liver.
>
>For more info, see:
>
>http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl
>
>Type "game" in search field.
>
>
Good point. Organ meats are chock full of vitamins and nutrients. Especially
liver and brains.
Cat in Alaska
On 2 Jun 1998 19:03:53 GMT, powl...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B.
Powlesland) wrote:
>In article <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C from
>>other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves, sedum roseum,
>
>These are only available during the brief summer months. Vitamin C can
>also be obtained from organ meats such as heart and liver.
And willow leaves can be stored year-round in seal oil.
<chuckle>
>
>For more info, see:
>
>http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl
Got that one thanks, have used it quite often lately in checking carbs
for hubby's diet. I also have a study that was done at University here
which includes many local items that the Nutrient Database doesn't seem
to have.
Would you like me to email you a copy?
Cat in Alaska
Warren Fritz
PM Bowles wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> And the funny thing is, they manage it. Actually, many animals do
> practice a kind of primitive herb lore - dogs and wolves will often eat
> grass and other plants in order to reinforce their immune systems
> against certain illnesses. This works too, without the need to dissect
> anything.
>
Actually we still do sure they will survive but think of how many more could and would survive
and contribute if they wouldn't have to depend on "luck", etc.. in order to prevent or heal.
One thing you seem to be missing is they are another SPECIES. How can you attribute human
atributes to a whole different species? I'll bet if you became seriously ill you would not
like it if there was a treatment for that ailment available BUT someone said you could not
have it because it was discovered because of dissection. What would you do? It seems to me
that it would suddenly become very important to you to have that medical knowledge. Just
because it may not be immediately relevant to you does not mean that the knowledge on the
behalf of others should not be pursued.
<SNIP>
> I was merely remarking on your comment that, while a human can go into a
> squid's environment and survive, a squid cannot do the same - a somewhat
> ambiguous claim.
Ambiguous claim? How so? It is a simple FACT that a squid must without a doubt stay in its
own environment (h2o).
<SNIP>
> > then?
> > I would like to hear your thoughts.
>
> Discovering how to hide in a piece of technology and operate that
> technology after a fashion as the octopus did is an example of complex
> problem-solving. So is deciding to ambush a rival band, as some chimps
> do, or looking at food on the end of a string and working out how to
> pull the string up and hold it before performing the task (ravens), or
> washing potatoes to stave off infection (Japanese macaques) etc. etc.
> Many of the more successful species in the world, such as termites,
> ants and cockroaches, all of which are far more successful than humans,
> do not spend time solving complex problems (unlike humans, they don't
> create situations for themselves where complex problems arise) or
> using tools. Strange that the most successful species in the world are
> all vermin...
>
So do you view yourself as "vermin"? Ants and cockroaches don't encounter complex problems
because they have a single "mindedness" to their survival. They do one of 3 things:
1. They eat (this includes finding food)
2. They reproduce
3. They hide from predators (to some extent the rest of the world)
> <SNIP>
>
> > >
> > > Squid don't get either disease.
> >
> > Exactly!! Which is one reason many study them. To try to find out WHY they are not
> > afflicted. Another reason they are dissected is that students have to learn about the
> > less "complex" (structurally that is) animals before learning about more and more
> > complex animals. In other words they need a strong knowledge base to begin with.
>
> Nonsense; HIV has been identified only in mammals and studying other
> classes of life, especially invertebrate life, can have no practical
> application. Canacer also arises from vertebrate physiology, as there
> are no apparent cases in invertebrate species, and most serious
> medical research, especially regarding cancer, focuses on animals which
> can be infected with the disease and which can therefore be used as a
> 'test-bed' for various treatments. There is also the fact that a lot of
> cancer research uses no animals at all; since it is known what cancers
> are, many advances used to destroy them are based on theory rather than
> practice.
>
I did mention another ailment (cancer). Besides if we can find out why those ailments are
only found in vertebrates (or only in mamals, etc..) we can look at how we can prevent and
treat them in humans. You have to remember everything is interconnected in some way.
> > > Why do we need to live 20 years longer?
> > > Those years are wasted, after all, since we are designed to live only 50
> > > or 60 years; after that, the body has deteriorated to such an extent
> > > that there is no biological incentive for its siurvival - increased
> > > human lifespan has done nothing but increase the period of useless old
> > > age.
> >
> > Actually those years are NOT wasted.
<SNIP>
> NO ONE wants to die
> > except those that are mentally deranged in some way. As for why live 20 years longer-
> > to spend that much more time with friends, family and loved ones. That in itself is a
> > pretty damned good reason, plus there are many many more reasons.
>
> Hardly sufficient reasons to justify the deaths of the individual
> animals involved in the research; even today very few people who reach
> the age of 70 are in healthy enough condition to contribute to society
> in any meaningful fashion. As New Scientist reports this week, there is
> a very good evolutionary reason for this - quite simply, the number of
> individuals surviving to such ages is so small, or at least has been,
> that there is no evolutionary drive to stop the deterioration of the
> body past a certain point or to make the body more efficient at greater
> ages. Consequently, we are currently unnaturally extending a lifespan
> beyond the healthy evolutionary limits, causing more health problems,
> especially chronic ones, which require more money and more medical
> treatment which would be better spent serving the needs of the more
> productive members of society. It's like letting these people live on
> life support machines after they would naturally have died.
>
To tell you the truth I have seen more people die on life support due to accidents, cancer
then from old age. As for being over 70 and contributing - they can pass on their knowledge
gained from their experience. Besides I know of more than a dozen people who I can think of
off of the top of my head with out really thinking who have lived well past their 70th
birthday and were and still are (and many are still alive) contributing to society. Why
didn't you answer my question? Tell me this if you live to say 69 are you going to end your
life (even if you are happy and still contributing to society) when you turn 70?
WARREN
PM Bowles
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
>
>
> PM Bowles wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 29 May 1998, Warren Fritz wrote:
> >
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > And the funny thing is, they manage it. Actually, many animals do
> > practice a kind of primitive herb lore - dogs and wolves will often eat
> > grass and other plants in order to reinforce their immune systems
> > against certain illnesses. This works too, without the need to dissect
> > anything.
> >
>
> Actually we still do sure they will survive but think of how many more could and would survive
> and contribute if they wouldn't have to depend on "luck", etc.. in order to prevent or heal.
> One thing you seem to be missing is they are another SPECIES. How can you attribute human
> atributes to a whole different species? I'll bet if you became seriously ill you would not
> like it if there was a treatment for that ailment available BUT someone said you could not
> have it because it was discovered because of dissection. What would you do? It seems to me
> that it would suddenly become very important to you to have that medical knowledge. Just
> because it may not be immediately relevant to you does not mean that the knowledge on the
> behalf of others should not be pursued.
Luck has very little to do with it; if an animal habitually eats a
certain thing when it feels ill, the survivors of the illness will be
those which the food in question protects against disease. The same is
true of humans; if we didn't use medicines we would develop natural
immunities to many diseases and medical treatment actually lowers our
resistance to disease, not to mention the fact that bacteria are very
good at adapting to antibiotics because they too promote natural
selection - only those bacteria with a resistance to the antibiotics
will survive to breed. Widespread use of medicine as opposed to herblore
has only arisen in the past couple of centuries, after all, and society
worked well enough before it appeared.
Philip Bowles
Mike Vandeman
On Sun, 31 May 1998 09:04:57 GMT, noone...@noemail.com wrote:
.On Sat, 30 May 1998 14:36:51 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
.wrote:
.
.>On Thu, 28 May 1998 16:20:50 GMT, Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
.>
.>.In article <6khimr$7dl$1...@gate.ea.com>,
.>. "Gerry Shaw" <gs...@NOSPAM.ea.com> wrote:
.>.>
.>.> Well I'm almost afraid to respond to this. My last message was not meant to
.>.> be taken literally. I guess I should have added a bit more sarcasm.
.>.>
.>.> The point I was trying to make was that it is completely ridiculous to
.>.> justify the amount of animals used in food today because we used to eat them
.>.> in our past. The planet can't handle it with our population and judging
.>.> from waist lines and health problems of many people, either can we.
.>.>
.>.> I'm not saying everyone one should go with out cars power, grow there own
.>.> food, be vegan. I'm saying that we could all cut down a whole lot and the
.>.> end result would be POSITIVE for human evolution, not negative.
.>.>
.>.>
.>.More Vegetarian lies and myths. Name me one vegetable that has a comparable
.>.nutritian and protein count to rare, red meat.
.>
.>Why does it have to be ONE food? Name ONE animal that has the
.>nutritional value of an orange?! So what???
.
.Blackfish is better... only thing that the orange beats it in is Vit.C...
.but then your body would die of fat starvation on a diet of oranges.
.
. 100 Gram Orange/ 100 Gram Blackfish /100 Gram Willow
.Calories 47 80 120
.Protein 0.94 gr. 15.6 gr. 4.55
.Fats 0.063gr. 1.4 gr. 1.4
.Carbohydrates 11.75 gr. 1.4 gr. 23.8
.Calcium 40 mg 720 mg 408
.Iron 0.1 mg 7.02 mg . 2.7
.Vitamin A 205 IU 1200 IU 1870
.Thiamine 0.087mg 0.09 mg 0.9
.Riboflavin 0.04 mg 0.2.89 mg 0.187
.Niacin 0.282mg 2.4 mg 2.4
.vitamin C 53.2mg 16. mg 240
.
.Next time pick Willow leaves Mike... they've got oranges beat hands-down
.and are great for a headache... but go light on 'em for fear of stomach
.distress... oh, and it's an aquired taste, btw, not nearly as sweet as
.oranges but they'll darn sure help keep you alive in a pinch.
Thanks for the information. But it is incomplete. Eskimos obviously
get all the necessary vitamins, but in order to get vitamin C I
suspect that they eat a part of animals that the rest of us don't. I
heard that you have to eat the WHOLE FISH, for example, to get the
vitamins. People usually only eat the muscles.
Warren Fritz
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the information. But it is incomplete. Eskimos obviously
> get all the necessary vitamins, but in order to get vitamin C I
> suspect that they eat a part of animals that the rest of us don't. I
> heard that you have to eat the WHOLE FISH, for example, to get the
> vitamins. People usually only eat the muscles.
Wrong again! The vitamin (or other nutritional contents for that matter) are based on muscle. Tests are only run on portions of the
animal that would be utilized. Scales, "bones", etc. would not be tested. Some people eat eyeballs, liver, etc. Some even eat the
whole fish (smelt, herring, etc.) bones, scales and all.
WARREN
Floyd Davidson
Wrong again how? What did Mike Vandeman say that was wrong?
Your additional comments are correct and they support exactly
the quoted paragraph referenced. You should have begun with
a "Right On!".
Eskimos obviously do get the necessary vitamins and do in
fact eat animal parts that some people do not, such as the
"WHOLE FISH". They also tend to process meat in ways that
do not destroy the nutrients (boiling food if it is heated
at all, but drying, freezing, fermenting... etc. too).
The entire discussion, however, on that basis is badly formed:
In article <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>,
Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C
>from other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves,
>sedum roseum,
Cat knows exactly what she is talking about, and dismissing it
with amusing comments about how such things are only available
in the summer is inaccurate. Certainly the Eskimo traditional
means of meat preparation and their delight in eating everything
digestible contributes to a balanced diet. But so does the
plant matter they eat all year round contribute at least equally.
Just as meat can and is preserved by drying, freezing, etc, so
are fruits and vegetables stored in the same way. And likewise
the use of little heat or boiling when it is cooked adds greatly
to the "healthy" nature of their diet.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@ptialaska.net
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Cat in Alaska
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 11:15:39 -0600, Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the information. But it is incomplete. Eskimos obviously
>> get all the necessary vitamins, but in order to get vitamin C I
>> suspect that they eat a part of animals that the rest of us don't. I
>> heard that you have to eat the WHOLE FISH, for example, to get the
>> vitamins. People usually only eat the muscles.
>
>Wrong again! The vitamin (or other nutritional contents for that matter) are based on muscle. Tests are only run on portions of the
>animal that would be utilized. Scales, "bones", etc. would not be tested. Some people eat eyeballs, liver, etc. Some even eat the
>whole fish (smelt, herring, etc.) bones, scales and all.
>
> WARREN
The chart I have that lists many of the indigenous (sp?) foods here in Alaska
from a study done by the University of Alaska lists them specifically according
to 100 gram _edible_ portions. Things such as livers, eyeballs and such are
specifically listed seperately, so what was given here was probably edible
portions (after looking it up myself, it *was* edible portions, not the whole
fish). Same with the USDA Nutrient database of foods listed at
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/
Cat in Alaska
On 9 Jun 1998 14:00:56 GMT, fl...@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>
>Warren Fritz <Fri...@rapidnet.com> wrote:
>>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information. But it is incomplete. Eskimos obviously
>>> get all the necessary vitamins, but in order to get vitamin C I
>>> suspect that they eat a part of animals that the rest of us don't. I
>>> heard that you have to eat the WHOLE FISH, for example, to get the
>>> vitamins. People usually only eat the muscles.
>>
>>Wrong again! The vitamin (or other nutritional contents for
>>that matter) are based on muscle. Tests are only run on
>>portions of the animal that would be utilized. Scales,
>>"bones", etc. would not be tested. Some people eat eyeballs,
>>liver, etc. Some even eat the whole fish (smelt, herring,
>>etc.) bones, scales and all.
>
>Wrong again how? What did Mike Vandeman say that was wrong?
>Your additional comments are correct and they support exactly
>the quoted paragraph referenced. You should have begun with
>a "Right On!".
>
>Eskimos obviously do get the necessary vitamins and do in
>fact eat animal parts that some people do not, such as the
>"WHOLE FISH". They also tend to process meat in ways that
>do not destroy the nutrients (boiling food if it is heated
>at all, but drying, freezing, fermenting... etc. too).
>
>The entire discussion, however, on that basis is badly formed:
>
>In article <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>,
>Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>>Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C
>>from other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves,
>>sedum roseum,
>
>Cat knows exactly what she is talking about, and dismissing it
>with amusing comments about how such things are only available
>in the summer is inaccurate. Certainly the Eskimo traditional
>means of meat preparation and their delight in eating everything
>digestible contributes to a balanced diet. But so does the
>plant matter they eat all year round contribute at least equally.
Floyd, with the *waste* of food and easy availability of such in most of the
lower 48, I kinda wonder if many of the people on this group can even conceive
of the lifestyle lived by rural Alaskans.
<sigh>
>
>Just as meat can and is preserved by drying, freezing, etc, so
>are fruits and vegetables stored in the same way. And likewise
>the use of little heat or boiling when it is cooked adds greatly
>to the "healthy" nature of their diet.
>
> Floyd
>
>
>
>--
>Floyd L. Davidson fl...@ptialaska.net
>Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
On of these days, Floyd, I'm going to hop on that mail run of Warbelows and head
up to Barrow for a visit. So... are you going to show me "the town" when I do?
(or at least point me towards the best cook for lunch?)
Cat in Alaska
Floyd Davidson
Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Eskimos obviously do get the necessary vitamins and do in
>>fact eat animal parts that some people do not, such as the
>>"WHOLE FISH". They also tend to process meat in ways that
>>do not destroy the nutrients (boiling food if it is heated
>>at all, but drying, freezing, fermenting... etc. too).
>>
>>The entire discussion, however, on that basis is badly formed:
>>
>>In article <3572ea28...@news.newsguy.com>,
>>Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
>>>Actually eskimos and other northern peoples get their vitamin C
>>>from other sources such as fireweed, buttercups, willow leaves,
>>>sedum roseum,
>>
>>Cat knows exactly what she is talking about, and dismissing it
>>with amusing comments about how such things are only available
>>in the summer is inaccurate. Certainly the Eskimo traditional
>>means of meat preparation and their delight in eating everything
>>digestible contributes to a balanced diet. But so does the
>>plant matter they eat all year round contribute at least equally.
>
>Floyd, with the *waste* of food and easy availability of such
>in most of the lower 48, I kinda wonder if many of the people
>on this group can even conceive of the lifestyle lived by rural
>Alaskans. <sigh>
That's true. It would be difficult for most people from the
lower-48 to even begin to imagine our lifestyle. There are just
so few things that are common in terms of real significance.
As in, we all watch the same TV programs, but when I go to the
store I can't find a beef steak for less than $7-8 a pound.
As a result, if we all happen to see a Nature (or Nova, or
maybe the evening news or whatever) program that depicts a
herd of caribou grazing on the tundra of the Arctic National
Wildlife Reserve, some people have no problem with half as
many caribou and a few oil rigs in between. But bush Alaskans
see fewer caribou in terms of hunger pangs...
It's a very different world!
>>Just as meat can and is preserved by drying, freezing, etc, so
>>are fruits and vegetables stored in the same way. And likewise
>>the use of little heat or boiling when it is cooked adds greatly
>>to the "healthy" nature of their diet.
>On of these days, Floyd, I'm going to hop on that mail run of
>Warbelows and head up to Barrow for a visit. So... are you
>going to show me "the town" when I do? (or at least point me
>towards the best cook for lunch?) Cat in Alaska
Checking out the "best cook" in Barrow takes a full week of
effort! There are more interesting places to eat here than in
Fairbanks. But come on up! The two-bit tour starts in the
morning, and the four bit tour follows in the afternoon. (I
need a siesta for lunch.)
Of course, I tell everyone that, and everyone thinks it is a
great idea until they do a cost study on round trip tickets to
Barrow.
Cat in Alaska
On 10 Jun 1998 00:13:40 GMT, fl...@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>Cat in Alaska <out...@REMOVEmosquitonet.com> wrote:
<snipt>
>>Floyd, with the *waste* of food and easy availability of such
>>in most of the lower 48, I kinda wonder if many of the people
>>on this group can even conceive of the lifestyle lived by rural
>>Alaskans. <sigh>
>
>That's true. It would be difficult for most people from the
>lower-48 to even begin to imagine our lifestyle. There are just
>so few things that are common in terms of real significance.
>As in, we all watch the same TV programs, but when I go to the
>store I can't find a beef steak for less than $7-8 a pound.
I haven't even looked lately at the beef prices in Frbnks. Last time I did look
(months ago) I think plain ole hamburger was running about $3 lb.
>As a result, if we all happen to see a Nature (or Nova, or
>maybe the evening news or whatever) program that depicts a
>herd of caribou grazing on the tundra of the Arctic National
>Wildlife Reserve, some people have no problem with half as
>many caribou and a few oil rigs in between. But bush Alaskans
>see fewer caribou in terms of hunger pangs...
I agree, and it's not just the oil rigs that are affecting our wildlife, but the
extra people we have moving up here every year as well. (still slow growing
population, but I do enjoy seeing those "for sale" signs going up each spring
:)) Course, I can't complain too much about folks that want to live here, since
I'm a transplant myself, but when I run into those (usually wives) that are
based in the military who do nothing but complain... well, I just kinda wish
they'd get sent elsewhere.
(going off the rant before I get really going, lol)
>
>It's a very different world!
Agreed... I wouldn't trade it for anything. Not even when it's cold and the
boiler goes out and all the pipes freeze up. ;-)
>>On of these days, Floyd, I'm going to hop on that mail run of
>>Warbelows and head up to Barrow for a visit. So... are you
>>going to show me "the town" when I do? (or at least point me
>>towards the best cook for lunch?) Cat in Alaska
>
>Checking out the "best cook" in Barrow takes a full week of
>effort! There are more interesting places to eat here than in
>Fairbanks.
Hey, that's not saying a whole lot <gg>, but I'll take your word on that one.
> But come on up! The two-bit tour starts in the
>morning, and the four bit tour follows in the afternoon. (I
>need a siesta for lunch.)
>
>Of course, I tell everyone that, and everyone thinks it is a
>great idea until they do a cost study on round trip tickets to
>Barrow.
Maybe by the end of summer... maybe will get on my list for next summer, but I
am determined and cost be damned, I'll make it up there someday! <BG>
>
> Floyd
>
>--
>Floyd L. Davidson fl...@ptialaska.net
>Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
Cat in Alaska