people who kill animals
ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Steve Cannon wrote:
>
> I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> innocent creature's life?"
One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
Bruce
If God didn't want us to eat animals,
Why did he make them out of meat?
Robert
Robert Det...@vnet.ibm.com
Joseph Crowe
ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> Steve Cannon wrote:
>
> >
> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > innocent creature's life?"
>
> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> Bruce
>
> If God didn't want us to eat animals,
> Why did he make them out of meat?
So why the aversion to chowing down on your neighbors' rugrats? Just
an innocent question, not a suggestion, though in all fairness, yard
apes seldom contribute any more than the most popular game animals....
and, when they're young and tender.....mighty tasty...;^).
--
Joseph Crowe
jcr...@austx.tandem.com
Nature forms us for ourselves, not for others; to be, not to seem.
-fortune cookie from 12/10/96
Norman Richards
In article <1996Dec1...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>,
<ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Steve Cannon wrote:
>> I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> innocent creature's life?"
>
>One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
That merely says that our bodies are capable of consuming animal
flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
for us.
______________________________________________________________________________
o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
Charles Herrick
ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> Steve Cannon wrote:
>
> >
> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > innocent creature's life?"
>
> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
a pile of broken glass under my house,
and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
--
mailto:cher...@concentric.net
I speak only for myself.
I reserve the right to copyright any and all parts of my emails or
netnews posts
Rick Shank
In article <59783i$c...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>,
Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <1996Dec1...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>,
> <ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>Steve Cannon wrote:
>>> I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>>> innocent creature's life?"
>>
>>One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
>flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
>for us.
Horsehockey Norman. Your body is designed to eat flesh. It is healthy and
mother nature knows nothing of morality. If one chooses to deny this part
of their diet, that is their business. To push your morality on me, especially
when it is unnatural, is immoral. ;^)
Rick
--
Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author. If you are
smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
"I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing." Sgt. Schultz
Rick Shank
In article <32B812...@concentric.net>,
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>> Steve Cannon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> > innocent creature's life?"
>>
>> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
>
>However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>a pile of broken glass under my house,
>and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
Gosh Chuck, I always took you for having a higher IQ than this. Get out your
dictionary son. Do you like mustard or mayonaise with your crow?
Marty Hobratschk
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> sez (and I quote):
>ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>> Steve Cannon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> > innocent creature's life?"
>>
>> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>a pile of broken glass under my house,
>and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
BZZZZT!
I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
vegetable substances."
But you knew that.
>--
>mailto:cher...@concentric.net
>I speak only for myself.
>I reserve the right to copyright any and all parts of my emails or
>netnews posts
The opinions here are mine, alright?
http://www.connecti.com/~ebrand/wheel
Lane Wimberley
In article <32B812...@concentric.net> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >
> > Steve Cannon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > > innocent creature's life?"
> >
> > One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
[I want to eat. I don't want to take an innocent creature's life,
and I don't. - Lane]
> Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
From my handy Webster's II:
"omnivorous - eating both vegetable and animal substances"
You don't get out much, do you Chuck? It's called the English
language. Look into it. ;-)
> However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> a pile of broken glass under my house,
> and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why does this not surprise me?!
Love,
Lane
Norman Richards
In article <5997m8$ao8$1...@amdint2.amd.com>,
Rick Shank <ri...@dvorak.amd.com> wrote:
>In article <59783i$c...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>,
>Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> That merely says that our bodies are capable of consuming animal
>>flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
>>for us.
>Horsehockey Norman. Your body is designed to eat flesh. It is healthy and
>mother nature knows nothing of morality. If one chooses to deny this part
>of their diet, that is their business. To push your morality on me, especially
>when it is unnatural, is immoral. ;^)
Rick rick rick, when will you learn to read? :) I said that merely stating
that humans are omnivorous says that we are capable of eating animal flesh
and not that doing so is good from any of the perspectives that I could
think of. I didn't say that it wasn't healthy or that it wasn't moral.
But I'll say it now. Eating meat is not healthy. And since it is not
necessary for human survival, I find it cruel an immoral. There. Now
you can flame me. :)
Travis Wheatley
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>> Steve Cannon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> > innocent creature's life?"
>>
>> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
>
>a pile of broken glass under my house,
>and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>
Er, Charles,
Carnivores are those animals which eat only meat. Omnivores,
like humans, eat both meat and plants.
Conan The Librarian
In article <32B812...@concentric.net>, Charles Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>> Steve Cannon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> > innocent creature's life?"
>>
>> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>
> However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> a pile of broken glass under my house,
> and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
I realize I'm risking being labeled a permissive librul scum
(or worse), but in the interest of accuracy:
Omnivorous -- adj., eating both animal and vegetable substances.
(source: American Heritage Dictionary)
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled name-calling.
Chuck Vance
Chris Broadbent
Norman Richards wrote:
>
> In article <1996Dec1...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu>,
> <ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
> for us.
>
Why would morality come into this? It is merely a question of survival
which, in turn, is the balance between survival of the individual and
survival of the species.
If I'm hungry enough, I'm quite sure that I'll eat whatever I can
regardless of my distaste for whatever it is I'm about to chew and most
certainly without any moral question.
And before you bring up cannibalism, that is a more complex question as
it interferes with the aforementioned balance. Natural selection has
minimised the desire to eat one's own, just as it minimises the desire
to procreate with close relatives. Either activity would threaten the
existence of the species if carried out on a large scale.
Besides, where does one draw the line? At what level of non-sentience
must the intended dinner be before it is permissible to devour it?
Celery? Yogourt? Lobster? Calf? Pig? Whale?
--
Cheers,
Chris. Broadbent ( KC5VQL )
NOTE: My email address in this post is modified to prevent spam. Just
remove the '.nospam' from the end of it if you wish to email me. It
sucks that I must do this, but the amount of unsolicited crap I'm
receiving now makes it necessary.
Bruce Ryder
> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> sez (and I quote):
>
> >ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>
> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
Umm, well... how much are you willing to pay? I haven't had
lunch yet.
mmmmm.....broken glass........
-B
Charles Herrick
Lane Wimberley wrote:
>
> In article <32B812...@concentric.net> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> > ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Cannon wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > > > innocent creature's life?"
> > >
>
> and I don't. - Lane]
>
>
> "omnivorous - eating both vegetable and animal substances"
Webster's 9th, page 823, definition 2:
or, you could learn some latin and some greek,
and some linguistics and figure it out for
yourself, instead of touting the specific version
of your particular dictionary, although I'd
hate to hold my breath waiting for you
to engage in an intellectual exercise so
obviously beyond your meager capacity.
> You don't get out much, do you Chuck? It's called the English
> language. Look into it. ;-)
Take your own advice.
> > However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> > a pile of broken glass under my house,
> > and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Why does this not surprise me?!
I have no earthly idea.
Charles Herrick
> >ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >>
> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >
> >
> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>
> dictionary son. Do you like mustard or mayonaise with your crow?
Some of us _ARE_ dictionaries, Rick.
Omnivore - some(one/thing) that eats everything (note
the prefix "omni?")
Carnivore - some(one/thing) that eats meat (note
the prefix "carne")
Hint,
In case you're up to your usual humor-challenged thing,
the Subject: header line is a joke.
Now, help yourself to whatever condiments
you like for your crow, and start
woofing.
Charles Herrick
> >>
> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >>
> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>
> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>
>
> I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
> vegetable substances."
>
> But you knew that.
Webster's 9th, page 823, definition 2:
Bzzt right back to you, pal.
Charles Herrick
Travis Wheatley wrote:
>
> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >>
> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >
> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
> >
> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
> >
>
>
> Carnivores are those animals which eat only meat. Omnivores,
> like humans, eat both meat and plants.
There are several definitions for the word.
Check any decent dictionary. Or use
your latin and/or greek and linguistics
and build your understanding of what
went into building the word yourself.
Charles Herrick
>
> > ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >>
> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >
> > Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
> >
> > However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> > a pile of broken glass under my house,
> > and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>
> (or worse), but in the interest of accuracy:
>
> (source: American Heritage Dictionary)
>
> We now return you to your regularly-scheduled name-calling.
Check Webster's 9th, page 823,
Omnivorous, definition 2:
Lug
Norman Richards (o...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: That merely says that our bodies are capable of consuming animal
: flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
: for us.
oh, jeezus, here we go. People, please, don't even bother with this.
Waste o' time.
[subject added to my killfile]
-- L
Marty Hobratschk
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> sez (and I quote):
>Marty Hobratschk wrote:
>>
>>
>> BZZZZT!
>>
>> I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
>> vegetable substances."
>>
>> But you knew that.
>Webster's 9th, page 823, definition 2:
>Bzzt right back to you, pal.
Yeah, I saw that too: "avidly taking in everything *AS IF* devouring
or consuming <became an ~ reader of the classics -- T.S. Lovering><an
expression of ~ but benefolent curiosity -- A.J. Liebling><an ~
collector of antiques>"
So I'm sorry, you ARE wrong. Face the pain, Chuck. I know it's hard,
but you can do it...
>--
>mailto:cher...@concentric.net
>I speak only for myself.
>I reserve the right to copyright any and all parts of my emails or
>netnews posts
The opinions here are mine, alright?
http://www.connecti.com/~ebrand/wheel
Rick Shank
In article <599hn8$9...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>,
Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <5997m8$ao8$1...@amdint2.amd.com>,
>Rick Shank <ri...@dvorak.amd.com> wrote:
>>In article <59783i$c...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>,
>>> That merely says that our bodies are capable of consuming animal
>>>flesh, not that doing so is either healthy, moral or in any way good
>>>for us.
>>mother nature knows nothing of morality. If one chooses to deny this part
>>of their diet, that is their business. To push your morality on me, especially
>>when it is unnatural, is immoral. ;^)
>
> Rick rick rick, when will you learn to read? :) I said that merely stating
>that humans are omnivorous says that we are capable of eating animal flesh
>and not that doing so is good from any of the perspectives that I could
>think of. I didn't say that it wasn't healthy or that it wasn't moral.
>
> But I'll say it now. Eating meat is not healthy. And since it is not
>necessary for human survival, I find it cruel an immoral. There. Now
>you can flame me. :)
It would appear that I read pretty well. You just don't think you said the
first time what you specifically stated the second time. Your 'intonation'
was there and it came across accurately. With regards to flaming you, no.
You ARE wrong though. Check your teeth. Eating meat is healthy. Eating
meat alone is not healthy. If eating meat were not healthy, we would not
have survived as a species (fully equipped with cutting and tearing teeth).
We also have chewing teeth. We were made to eat vegetables also. That makes
us omnivores. Eating only vegetables makes as much sense as eating only meat.
A balanced diet is important for this species.
Lane Wimberley
In article <32B87A...@concentric.net> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> Lane Wimberley wrote:
> >
> > > ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve Cannon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > > > > innocent creature's life?"
> > > >
> > > > One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >
> > and I don't. - Lane]
> >
> >
> > "omnivorous - eating both vegetable and animal substances"
>
Fine. My claim was not that one definition of "omnivore" isn't "one
who eats everything" (although most definitions of this sort that I
have seen tend to say something like "one who avidly takes in
everything AS IF devouring or consuming," and not literally "one who
eats everything" - but I don't want to nit-pick). I was correcting
your original, erroneous implication that "omnivore" doesn't mean
"eating both vegetable and animal substances." Was your contention
not that humans aren't omnivorous, but only carnivorous?
> or, you could learn some latin and some greek,
> and some linguistics and figure it out for
> yourself, instead of touting the specific version
> of your particular dictionary, although I'd
> hate to hold my breath waiting for you
> to engage in an intellectual exercise so
> obviously beyond your meager capacity.
Yer barkin' up the wrong tree here, pal. Philology and etymology
are hobbies of mine.
(Chuck is giving advice about intellectual exercises! I love it!)
Lane
PS Te golova kak zhopah! <ptooey!>
Lane Wimberley
> > >>
> > >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> > >> > innocent creature's life?"
> > >>
> > >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> > >
> > >
> > >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> > >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Carnivores are those animals which eat only meat. Omnivores,
> > like humans, eat both meat and plants.
>
> There are several definitions for the word.
> Check any decent dictionary. Or use
> your latin and/or greek and linguistics
> and build your understanding of what
> went into building the word yourself.
Although deconstructing words in the context of their etymological roots
can be helpful in discerning meaning, one must exercise caution. Many
words in the English language have strayed considerably from their
orginal meanings (or those that their roots would indicate), especially
considering the extent to which non-germanic words have been borrowed
and words of germanic origin have been modified.
But, I'm sure Chuck, being the learned linguistic genious that he is,
would know better than to frivolously abuse the language or erroneously
accuse others of doing so.
Lane
(Chuck using caution when exercising the language? That would be
awful. Simply awful.)
Rick Shank
In article <32B879...@concentric.net>,
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> >> > innocent creature's life?"
>> >>
>> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>>
>> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>>
>> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
>> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
>> vegetable substances."
>>
>> But you knew that.
>
>
>
BZZZTTT!!! right back at you Chuckles. Definition 2 does not negate
definition 1. It is additional meaning. Your original response, 'must
be carnivore' is flat out incorrect. Humans are omnivores by definition
1 -- they eat all kinds of FOOD. How much crow are you going to eat?
Rick Shank
In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>,
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Travis Wheatley wrote:
>>
>> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> >> > innocent creature's life?"
>> >>
>> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>> >
>> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>> >
>> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
>> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Carnivores are those animals which eat only meat. Omnivores,
>> like humans, eat both meat and plants.
>
>There are several definitions for the word.
Bingo Chuckles. The first being the most reasonable one - eat both meat
and vegetable (all kinds of FOOD). The second being the literal meaning
of the word -- eat everything. But you claimed the right answer was
carnivore. YOU are incorrect. Omnivore is correct. Your selection of
the proper definition for the way ryderb used the word is incorrect.
>Check any decent dictionary. Or use
>your latin and/or greek and linguistics
>and build your understanding of what
>went into building the word yourself.
Then again, what do you want from a person who can't even pronounce
Guadalupe? !^}
Rick Shank
In article <32B879...@concentric.net>,>> In article <32B812...@concentric.net>,
>> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> >> > innocent creature's life?"
>> >>
>> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>> >
>> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>> >
>> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
>> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>>
>> dictionary son. Do you like mustard or mayonaise with your crow?
>
>Some of us _ARE_ dictionaries, Rick.
>
And YOU are not!
>Omnivore - some(one/thing) that eats everything (note
>the prefix "omni?")
>
According to Websters, omnivore is one that eats all types of *food*
OR eats everything. You unrightly slammed the original poster. We
are both carnivores and herbivores. That makes us carnivores by
definition (unless you wish to dig deep into the etymology of the word
but then it makes no sense, who eats stars and nuclear weapons, etc?).
>Carnivore - some(one/thing) that eats meat (note
>the prefix "carne")
>
>Hint,
>In case you're up to your usual humor-challenged thing,
>the Subject: header line is a joke.
>
>Now, help yourself to whatever condiments
>you like for your crow, and start
>woofing.
>
I feed your plate back to you. I hope you choke on it, Merry Christmas.
Rick
P.S. As you are the only person I have ever known who can insult someone
and wish them a happy holiday in the same breath, I'm sure you can relate
to the above.
Norman Richards
In article <59cb4r$7bj$1...@amdint2.amd.com>,
Rick Shank <ri...@dvorak.amd.com> wrote:
> You just don't think you said the
>first time what you specifically stated the second time.
I know exactly what I said the first time and the second. Don't
you find it a bit presumptuous to assume you know better than I do what
I said? :) In fact, I stated it the way I did
> If eating meat were not healthy, we would not have survived as a species
How about:
"If smoking were not healthy, we would not have survived as a species"
The arguement doesn't really hold. There are lots of of things, meat
eating included, which do no not induce immediate death and yet which
are not helpful or conducive to good health.
What you have demonstrated is that eating meat is not so severely harmful
that doing so inhibits your ability to effectively reproduce or be
competitive in a "natural selection" sense that another poster mentioned.
> (fully equipped with cutting and tearing teeth).
Nonsense. Compare your teeth to that of natural meet eating animals.
They aren't the least bit similar.
Since you mention teeth, below is portion of a comparison of the
anatomies of carnivores,herbivores,omnivores and the humans. (from
"http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm")
Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted
Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
If you really look at your teeth, you will see they really weren't
made like those of carnivores or omnivores. Here is a challenge. Take
two or three animals that fit into each category and compare your teeth
to the theirs. Let me know which one's your teeth more resemble.
But, it's not just teeth, which you chose to mention. Our jaw, mouth,
chewing action, stomache, digestive system, etc... all resemble that
of plant eating animals more than that of meat eating animals or even
natural omnivores.
Albert Nurick
In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, cher...@concentric.net
says...
> There are several definitions for the word.
This is true. In a certain context, one is most appropriate, a fact you
seem unwilling to acknowledge. Would you try to convince me that the
device used to raise my car (a jack) should, in fact, be used to play
card games?
> Check any decent dictionary. Or use
> your latin and/or greek and linguistics
> and build your understanding of what
> went into building the word yourself.
The first suggestion is wiser. Even if one knows linguistics, he may not
be able to derive the agreed-upon usage. The English language is full of
words with curious derivation.
Charles, it's OK to admit you made a mistake. Your rather involved
rationalization is most unbecoming.
--
| Albert Nurick | "In case of doubt, decide in |
| alb...@data.net | favor of what is correct." |
| http://www.data.net | |
| http://www.data.net/albert | - Karl Kraus |
Albert Nurick
In article <59cfk6$q...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
> Nonsense. Compare your teeth to that of natural meet eating animals.
> They aren't the least bit similar.
>
> Since you mention teeth, below is portion of a comparison of the
> anatomies of carnivores,herbivores,omnivores and the humans. (from
> "http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm")
<< SNIP >>
A site called "www.newveg.av.org" might have a *slight* bias. Of course,
anyone who trys to dispute that humans are omnivorous would probably
overlook this.
Norman Richards
In article <MPG.d2387571...@news.earthlink.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
>A site called "www.newveg.av.org" might have a *slight* bias. Of course,
>anyone who trys to dispute that humans are omnivorous would probably
>overlook this.
I'm not trying to dispute that most people today eat as omnivores. Nor
did I dispute the people are incapable of eating meat. What I was trying
to demonstrate was that humans more resemble herbivores than natural
omnivores. As a result, the omnivorous diet practiced by most people
probably isn't the one best suited to our physiology.
I think the introductory paragraph explains the idea better than I can:
Humans are most often described as "omnivores". This classification is
based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of
plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are
confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus,
"observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify
the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly
"behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether
humans are anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well
as plant foods.
Norman Richards
In article <59cvj5$27e$1...@boris.eden.com>, Tim McGaughy <tee...@eden.com> wrote:
>One who eats meat, as humans tend to do, cannot be classed as a vegitarian,
>and must be either a carnivore or an omnivore.
Actually, I've done some reading up this afternoon after the discussion
here. I don't think the above statement is entirely accurate. The
classifications are not quite so cut and dry.
"
It turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat meat.
Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can eat meat, humans can eat meat.
In fact, even cows can eat meat! Indeed, cows are regularly fed
rendered meat protein, some of which is from slaughtered cows! It also
turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat plants. Cats
and dogs digest carbohydrates and will do so even in the wild (by
eating their the stomach contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which
are clearly carnivores are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous".
The Merck Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:
Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild variety of
foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables the dog to meet his
nutritional requirements from a remarkable diversity of diets... Some
vegetable proteins are... satisfactory sources of amino acids for dogs.
"
Hope that helps.
Albert Nurick
In article <59cnmf$i...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
> In article <MPG.d2387571...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
> >A site called "www.newveg.av.org" might have a *slight* bias. Of course,
> >anyone who trys to dispute that humans are omnivorous would probably
> >overlook this.
>
> I'm not trying to dispute that most people today eat as omnivores. Nor
> did I dispute the people are incapable of eating meat. What I was trying
> to demonstrate was that humans more resemble herbivores than natural
> omnivores. As a result, the omnivorous diet practiced by most people
> probably isn't the one best suited to our physiology.
>
> I think the introductory paragraph explains the idea better than I can:
Again, consider the source of your information. It's like using Charles
Herrick as a source for information on Aggie Corps behavior. :-)
Vegetarians are sure that they're doing the right thing. I encourage
them; there's only so much USDA Prime beef available.
Tim McGaughy
Charles Herrick (cher...@concentric.net) wrote:
: ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: >
: > Steve Cannon wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
: > > innocent creature's life?"
: >
: > One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
: Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
Nope... He's right. We're omnivores.
: However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
: a pile of broken glass under my house,
: and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
One who eats veggies, as humans tend to do, and has grinding teeth for
the task, as humans tend to do, is either classed as a vegitarian or an
omnivore.
One who eats meat, as humans tend to do, cannot be classed as a vegitarian,
and must be either a carnivore or an omnivore.
The problem lies, you see, in your too literal interpretation of the word
'omnivore'. It is not intended to depict something that will literally
eat anything including hand-grenades and plutonium. It is a scientific
term to describe a creature that eats both meat and vegitable.
It applies very well to us.
Norman Richards
In article <MPG.d23e2bc9...@news.earthlink.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
>> I think the introductory paragraph explains the idea better than I can:
><< SNIP >>
>
I'm willing to bet you don't even KNOW who the source of the information
is. The site the article is on is not, as far as I can tell, the originator
of the article. However, based on your posting, it seems you've dismissed
the ideas based solely on the site that hosted the information. (I could
be wrong - maybe you just like to be argumentative? :)
Conan The Librarian
In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, Charles Herrick
<cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>Conan The Librarian wrote:
>>
>> In article <32B812...@concentric.net>, Charles Herrick
>> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>>
>> > ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
>> >> > innocent creature's life?"
>> >>
>> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>> >
>> > Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>> >
>> > However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
>> > a pile of broken glass under my house,
>> > and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>>
>> I realize I'm risking being labeled a permissive librul scum
>> (or worse), but in the interest of accuracy:
>>
>> Omnivorous -- adj., eating both animal and vegetable substances.
>> (source: American Heritage Dictionary)
>>
>> We now return you to your regularly-scheduled name-calling.
>
>Check Webster's 9th, page 823,
>Omnivorous, definition 2:
Cool, Chuck wants to play dictionary-wars.
OK, let's see ... page 823 ... here we are: "2. avidly taking in
everything as if devouring or consuming".
Hmmm ... "*as* *if* devouring or consuming". Gosh, that's not even
describing the actual act of eating. It's using the word as a simile.
Then there's definition number 1 on the same page which says: "feeding
on both animal and vegatable substances".
I'd say it's quite clear that the first definition is more apropos
to the discussion in question. Besides, finding an alternate
definition does not negate the validity of the first definition.
So, your claim that the first poster was using "omnivore" incorrectly
falls flat.
Just admit your mistake and move on. You're starting to look silly.
(I'm off for vacation, so your response, if any, may expire before I see
it on a.g. If you're really nasty about it, I may respond from Dejanews
when I return.)
Chuck Vance
Charles Herrick
> >>
>
> >>
> >> BZZZZT!
> >>
> >> I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
> >> vegetable substances."
> >>
> >> But you knew that.
>
> >Webster's 9th, page 823, definition 2:
>
> >Bzzt right back to you, pal.
>
> or consuming <became an ~ reader of the classics -- T.S. Lovering><an
> expression of ~ but benefolent curiosity -- A.J. Liebling><an ~
> collector of antiques>"
>
> So I'm sorry, you ARE wrong. Face the pain, Chuck. I know it's hard,
> but you can do it...
Now you're just being a sore loser.
You've been proven wrong, and
in a public forum... if you
can't be a man, try acting like
one, quit whimpering, admit
you're wrong and go away.
Charles Herrick
Rick Shank wrote:
>
> In article <32B879...@concentric.net>,
> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >> >>
> >> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >>
> >> >Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
> >>
> >> >However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
> >> >a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >> >and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry ... the correct answer is "feeding on both animal and
> >> vegetable substances."
> >>
> >> But you knew that.
> >
> >Webster's 9th, page 823, definition 2:
> >
> >Bzzt right back to you, pal.
> >
>
> definition 1. It is additional meaning. Your original response, 'must
> be carnivore' is flat out incorrect. Humans are omnivores by definition
> 1 -- they eat all kinds of FOOD. How much crow are you going to eat?
>
Since you so adroitly observe that definition 2
does not negate definition 1, perhaps your
brain was in its usual vapor lock state
when you tried incorrectly to promote
that definition 1 negates definition 2.
So.... bzzt, right back to you, sir.
And, enjoy the crow.. I hear from
those who eat it that it tastes
like chicken.
Charles Herrick
Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, cher...@concentric.net
> says...
> > There are several definitions for the word.
>
> This is true. In a certain context, one is most appropriate, a fact you
> seem unwilling to acknowledge. Would you try to convince me that the
> device used to raise my car (a jack) should, in fact, be used to play
> card games?
It is correct that context determines
which definition of a word is best.
With that firmly ensconced under your
concensus belt, I suggest that you
now return to the beginning of this
thread and reread it. While you're
at it, you might want to keep your
little pocket dictionary open
to the word "context," since it
is obvious that you would not know
one if it slapped you in the face.
> > Check any decent dictionary. Or use
> > your latin and/or greek and linguistics
> > and build your understanding of what
> > went into building the word yourself.
>
> The first suggestion is wiser. Even if one knows linguistics, he may not
> be able to derive the agreed-upon usage. The English language is full of
> words with curious derivation.
>
> Charles, it's OK to admit you made a mistake. Your rather involved
> rationalization is most unbecoming.
Whenever I've made a mistake, I've admitted it.
It's just that I'm almost never wrong.
I'm looking for yours. Not surprising, your
wrong to admit ratio is a very large number
indeed.
Charles Herrick
Tim McGaughy wrote:
>
> Charles Herrick (cher...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : ryd...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> : >
> : > Steve Cannon wrote:
> : >
> : > >
> : > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> : > > innocent creature's life?"
> : >
> : > One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
>
> : Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
>
>
> : a pile of broken glass under my house,
> : and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
>
> the task, as humans tend to do, is either classed as a vegitarian or an
> omnivore.
The next time you're brushing your teeth,
check those incisors.
Now, we all await your admission of being wrong.
> One who eats meat, as humans tend to do, cannot be classed as a vegitarian,
> and must be either a carnivore or an omnivore.
>
> The problem lies, you see, in your too literal interpretation of the word
> 'omnivore'. It is not intended to depict something that will literally
> eat anything including hand-grenades and plutonium. It is a scientific
> term to describe a creature that eats both meat and vegitable.
>
> It applies very well to us.
--
Charles Herrick
Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
> In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, Charles Herrick
> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> >Conan The Librarian wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <32B812...@concentric.net>, Charles Herrick
> >> <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve Cannon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
> >> >> > innocent creature's life?"
> >> >>
> >> >> One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
> >> >
> >> > a pile of broken glass under my house,
> >> > and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
> >>
> >> (or worse), but in the interest of accuracy:
> >>
> >> Omnivorous -- adj., eating both animal and vegetable substances.
> >> (source: American Heritage Dictionary)
> >>
> >> We now return you to your regularly-scheduled name-calling.
> >
> >Check Webster's 9th, page 823,
> >Omnivorous, definition 2:
>
> Cool, Chuck wants to play dictionary-wars.
>
> OK, let's see ... page 823 ... here we are: "2. avidly taking in
> everything as if devouring or consuming".
>
> Hmmm ... "*as* *if* devouring or consuming". Gosh, that's not even
> describing the actual act of eating. It's using the word as a simile.
And you so blindly skipped over the word "everything."
See the first part of the word omnivorous? omni?
Guess what it means? Now, see from what the trailing part
of the word omnivorous derives? vore. Guess what
it means.
> Then there's definition number 1 on the same page which says: "feeding
> on both animal and vegatable substances".
>
> I'd say it's quite clear that the first definition is more apropos
> to the discussion in question. Besides, finding an alternate
> definition does not negate the validity of the first definition.
>
> So, your claim that the first poster was using "omnivore" incorrectly
> falls flat.
>
> Just admit your mistake and move on. You're starting to look silly.
>
> (I'm off for vacation, so your response, if any, may expire before I see
> it on a.g. If you're really nasty about it, I may respond from Dejanews
> when I return.)
Oh, I can hardly stand the suspense.
Charles Herrick
Norman Richards wrote:
>
> In article <59cb4r$7bj$1...@amdint2.amd.com>,
> Rick Shank <ri...@dvorak.amd.com> wrote:
> > You just don't think you said the
> >first time what you specifically stated the second time.
>
> I know exactly what I said the first time and the second. Don't
> you find it a bit presumptuous to assume you know better than I do what
> I said? :) In fact, I stated it the way I did
>
> > If eating meat were not healthy, we would not have survived as a species
>
> How about:
> "If smoking were not healthy, we would not have survived as a species"
>
> The arguement doesn't really hold. There are lots of of things, meat
> eating included, which do no not induce immediate death and yet which
> are not helpful or conducive to good health.
>
> What you have demonstrated is that eating meat is not so severely harmful
> that doing so inhibits your ability to effectively reproduce or be
> competitive in a "natural selection" sense that another poster mentioned.
>
> > (fully equipped with cutting and tearing teeth).
>
> They aren't the least bit similar.
>
> Since you mention teeth, below is portion of a comparison of the
> anatomies of carnivores,herbivores,omnivores and the humans. (from
> "http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm")
Oh, yeah, right... like I'm going to
use a vegetarian web page put up
by a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing,
tofu-eating, tree-hugging, emaciated
types as my definitive resource for
determining the relative value
of eating meat.
> Teeth: Molars
> CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
> HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
> OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
> HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
>
> Teeth: Canines
> CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
> HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
> OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
> HUMAN: Short and blunted
>
> Teeth: Incisors
> CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
> HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
> OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
> HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
>
> If you really look at your teeth, you will see they really weren't
> made like those of carnivores or omnivores. Here is a challenge. Take
> two or three animals that fit into each category and compare your teeth
> to the theirs. Let me know which one's your teeth more resemble.
>
> But, it's not just teeth, which you chose to mention. Our jaw, mouth,
> chewing action, stomache, digestive system, etc... all resemble that
> of plant eating animals more than that of meat eating animals or even
> natural omnivores.
--
Clayton Colwell
[Dictionary wars deleted]
Um, Charles, I think you understood the context of the original
"omnivore" comment, using the "eating both plant and animal"
definition that everyone else got, as opposed to the "eating
everything" definition that only you, apparently, choose to
apply.
Please, let us indeed get back to the regularly scheduled name-
calling. Here's something that might spark it up again: would
an article about a married male Baptist minister diddling 8-year-old
girls be sufficient evidence to support the revocation of all
heterosexual marriage privileges?
--
Clay Colwell "Geek love is strong. Geek love rocks!"
(aka StealthSmurf) -- seen in a Doonesbury strip
er...@bga.com
If you send me unsolicited commercial e-mail, you'll get it back.
Clayton Colwell
Charles Herrick (cher...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Albert Nurick wrote:
: >
: > In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, cher...@concentric.net
: > says...
: > > There are several definitions for the word.
: >
: > This is true. In a certain context, one is most appropriate, a fact you
: > seem unwilling to acknowledge. Would you try to convince me that the
: > device used to raise my car (a jack) should, in fact, be used to play
: > card games?
: It is correct that context determines
: which definition of a word is best.
: With that firmly ensconced under your
: concensus belt, I suggest that you
: now return to the beginning of this
: thread and reread it. While you're
: at it, you might want to keep your
: little pocket dictionary open
: to the word "context," since it
: is obvious that you would not know
: one if it slapped you in the face.
This started out with someone asking how someone might take joy in the
taking of an innocent creature's life.
Someone replied,
"One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores."
You said, "I hope you meant to say 'carnivore'."
You are correct in saying this, because the context for that comment
was focusing on the meat-eating aspect of the original reply: "One
who wants to eat" implies that humans *require* meat to live.
But when you expound on this and claim that the original replier's
usage of "omnivore" demands that we do eat literally *everything*,
you are incorrect in the context of human consumption: the simple
use of Occam's Razor indicates that the "carnivore+herbivore"
definition of "omnivore" takes precedence over your all-encompassing
choice.
Besides, the original replier was wrong, anyway; humans are *not*
required to eat meat and meat alone!
: > > Check any decent dictionary. Or use
: > > your latin and/or greek and linguistics
: > > and build your understanding of what
: > > went into building the word yourself.
: >
: > The first suggestion is wiser. Even if one knows linguistics, he may not
: > be able to derive the agreed-upon usage. The English language is full of
: > words with curious derivation.
: >
: > Charles, it's OK to admit you made a mistake. Your rather involved
: > rationalization is most unbecoming.
: Whenever I've made a mistake, I've admitted it.
: It's just that I'm almost never wrong.
Oooooo, and he's *humble*, too!
C'mon, Charles, give us that numerical percentage. Pretty please?
Norman Richards
In article <32BAB1...@concentric.net>,>use a vegetarian web page put up [...]
No, I'd expect *you* to continue using your complete lack of knowledge on
most topics and your lack of a basis in reality for most of your ideas.
That's what I've come to expect from your posts.
But for most of the intelligent people on austin.general, yes I would
expect that they would use the information there as evidence and have
the intellectual honesty not to dismiss information based on the group
that is passing along that information. At the same time, I'd expect people
to be critical and fairly evaluate it. If the ideas are flawed, the
data incorrect or the reasoning irrational, *then* you dismiss the ideas.
Albert Nurick
In article <59de39$d...@opus.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
> In article <MPG.d23e2bc9...@news.earthlink.net>,
> Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
> >Again, consider the source of your information. [...]
>
> I'm willing to bet you don't even KNOW who the source of the information
> is. The site the article is on is not, as far as I can tell, the originator
> of the article. However, based on your posting, it seems you've dismissed
> the ideas based solely on the site that hosted the information. (I could
> be wrong - maybe you just like to be argumentative? :)
I've dismissed nothing. I simply suggested that one not blindly accept
information that's being published by an advocacy group.
Albert Nurick
Interesting site. Some insightful quotes from
http://www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm :
Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the
chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's
fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-
eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion.
...
All of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences.
By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death,
even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future
experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
...
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects
our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to
live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By
ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into
the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a
terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of
butchered creatures.
...
Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of
species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for
livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of
meat in the human diet. No single decision that we can make as
individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the
improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat.
Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this
decision for this reason and this reason alone.
FWIW, it's taken from an article entitled "How to Win an Argument with a
Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with this? :-)
Albert Nurick
Charles,
I could never hope to aspire to your place in the universe.
Humbly,
Albert
Albert Nurick
In article <1996Dec2...@nyssa.swt.edu>, cv...@nyssa.swt.edu says...
> Just admit your mistake and move on. You're starting to look silly.
Sir, I must protest. Charles is absolutely, categorically, and
undeniably not "starting to look silly".
Lane Wimberley
In article <59d31f$u...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu> o...@cs.utexas.edu (Norman Richards) writes:
> In article <59cvj5$27e$1...@boris.eden.com>, Tim McGaughy <tee...@eden.com> wrote:
> >and must be either a carnivore or an omnivore.
>
> here. I don't think the above statement is entirely accurate. The
> classifications are not quite so cut and dry.
>
> "
> It turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat meat.
> Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can eat meat, humans can eat meat.
> In fact, even cows can eat meat! Indeed, cows are regularly fed
> rendered meat protein, some of which is from slaughtered cows! It also
> turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat plants. Cats
> and dogs digest carbohydrates and will do so even in the wild (by
> eating their the stomach contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which
> are clearly carnivores are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous".
> The Merck Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:
>
> Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild variety of
> foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables the dog to meet his
> nutritional requirements from a remarkable diversity of diets... Some
> vegetable proteins are... satisfactory sources of amino acids for dogs.
> "
>
> Hope that helps.
Thanks, Norman, for the helpful text. I thought it was pretty
interesting. I'm not surprised that things are not so clear-cut -
seems to be the case more often than not. To make matters even more
complicated, I've also heard of research that is leading to a theory
that some humans are better suited to eating flesh (even flesh high in
fat!), while others perform poorly with any fuel other than
vegetables.
There is a doctor here in Texas (I can't remember his name, but I seem
to recall he lives in some small town...?) whose controversial
findings include a link between cancer, pancreatic enzymes and the way
a body reacts to (and protects) a developing fetus. This doctor's
results indicate that every person's diet needs to be carefully tuned
to his/her own physiologic circumstances. (Any additional info that
someone else might be able to provide would be welcome!)
Of course, this has little to do with (what I perceive to be) the
spirit of the original thread, which was more along the lines of an
argument between those who are vegetarian for ethical reasons and
those who enjoy eating meat. I won't comment on that, other than to
say that I am a vegetarian; am happy and proud to be that way; feel
that I lead a healthy, fulfilled life; and, have many acquaintences
and relatives who eat meat with whom I choose not to argue, preferring
to let them live their lives as they see fit. (I can't pass up the
opportunity, though, to extoll the virtues of cutting back on
the amount of meat that most Americans eat, which I believe to be
unheathy both for the individual and for our ever-burgeoning
population and over-taxed resources.)
Lane
Norman Richards
In article <LANE.96De...@lanew.austin.ibm.com>,
Lane Wimberley <la...@lanew.austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>[...] To make matters even more
>complicated, I've also heard of research that is leading to a theory
>that some humans are better suited to eating flesh (even flesh high in
>fat!), while others perform poorly with any fuel other than
>vegetables.
The only thing I can think of that resembles this would be the "Zone"
diet fad of recent times. Some guy named Sears I think. (Barry Sears -
does that sound right?) One of these days I'll get around to trying to
find his book and read up on it - but I wasn't that impressed with the
ideas from what I have read on the web.
> [...] This doctor's
>results indicate that every person's diet needs to be carefully tuned
>to his/her own physiologic circumstances. (Any additional info that
>someone else might be able to provide would be welcome!)
I'd say there's probably a lot of truth to that statement. I'd love
to see the work. I think that despite the fact that human nutrition is
largely similar, there is still a remarkable diversity of what works best
for various people. I'd be skeptical of research that shows such a
radical departure from the norm, but anecdotally, I've met people who
have experimented with diet and found that different people work better
with different balances.
Norman Richards
In article <59fdqr$n...@nntp-2.io.com>, <mon...@io.com> wrote:
>alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) cited material from
>www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm to support his position that people should
>not eat meat, and concluded with:
Man - why is it that people can't seem to follow threads or even
pay attention on austin.general anymore? Albert was not (to my
understanding) trying to convince people to not eat meat. He seems to
hold exactly the opposite opinion and was probably trying to poke fun
at the vegetarian issue by showing some rather silly sounding (and
out of context) statements from another page on a site I referenced a
document from.
For those who are curious, the reason the article sounds so funny is
because it is written from the perspective of hinduism. Not being a
hindu myself, I can't really relate to many of the ideas presented. You
probably aren't either, so it wouldn't make much sense to you I'd guess.
>Sorry, friend. I know you tried hard, but you win no points this round.
Well, if you give Albert a negative score and he was actually trying
to achieve the exact opposite of what you scored him on. That means
he actually did get a lot of points this round. What does he win?
Albert Nurick
In article <59fj29$t...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
> Well, if you give Albert a negative score and he was actually trying
> to achieve the exact opposite of what you scored him on. That means
> he actually did get a lot of points this round. What does he win?
Thanks for clarifying... it's often difficult to convey irony in this
medium.
Actually, I wish vegetarians well. I just wish they'd stop trying to
convert us misguided omnivores.
mon...@io.com
alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) cited material from
www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm to support his position that people should
not eat meat, and concluded with:
>Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with this? :-)
sure many will. In fact, let me get in line."
>... with the chemically complex meat ingested,
>one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. ...
This is simply metaphysical claptrap. I have never seen one piece of
scientific evidence to substantiate such a claim. To present it as fact
reduces the credibility of the message to near-zero. Still, I do have a
few other notes:
The "karmic consequences" will likely be discussed by those who believe
in the concept, and ignored by others - as it should be.
An *egg* experiences anger, jealousy, *fear of death*? A shellfish gets
angry and jealous? Okayyyy ... As long as you're not anthropomorphizing
or exaggerating unto ludicrousness for effect. (I think I'll pass
entirely on the "grosser chemistries of animal foods" comment.)
>In large measure, the escalating loss of
>species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for
>livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
>impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of
>meat in the human diet.
I thought rain forests were being cleared as much for perceived
transportation needs and the desire to create more *farm* land - you
know, to grow vegetables as much as to feed grazing animals. Of course,
it's really a much more complex issue than either of these answers, but
then, that's my point. To say that eating meat leads directly and in
large part to the problems above is a simplistic, and therefore pretty
useless, assertion.
Rajat Datta
On 21 Dec 1996 01:17:15 GMT, mon...@io.com <mon...@io.com> wrote:
>
>An *egg* experiences anger, jealousy, *fear of death*? A shellfish gets
>angry and jealous? Okayyyy ... As long as you're not anthropomorphizing
>or exaggerating unto ludicrousness for effect. (I think I'll pass
>entirely on the "grosser chemistries of animal foods" comment.)
>
Very good. In fact, if an egg can experience anger and jealousy, why
can't an eggplant? If these vegetarians are not guilty of anthropomorphizing,
they are guilty of extreme specist-centric racism.
rajat
Tim McGaughy
Charles Herrick (cher...@concentric.net) wrote:: > : > > I asked myself, "What kind of person would relish in the taking of an
Tim McGaughy
: > : >
: > : > One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores.
: >
: > : Hopefully, you meant to say "carnivore."
: >
: > Nope... He's right. We're omnivores.
: >
: > : However, if you did mean ominvore, I have
: > : a pile of broken glass under my house,
: > : and I'd be willing to pay you to eat it.
: > One who eats veggies, as humans tend to do, and has grinding teeth for
: > the task, as humans tend to do, is either classed as a vegitarian or an
: > omnivore.
: The next time you're brushing your teeth,
: check those incisors.
Check those molars. Check those canines.
What exactly is your point? Do you even have one?
: Now, we all await your admission of being wrong.
"We?" You got a mouse in your pocket?
Okay, I admit that you are wrong.
Don't expect a reply beyond this. You are in my killfile now, as you are
Rajat Datta
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 04:25:12 GMT, jpc <jpc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <59fgel$c...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
>
> THOU SHALT NOT KILL
>
>One of the ten commandments, eh?
>Er... so, like, what does KILL mean?
>
>People? KILL??? Ummmm, the taking of life???
>
>If you kill a person, that's MURDER. It does not read: "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER..."
>What then is KILL?
>
>Definition time.
Well, you can either take that line literally, or interpret what is probably meant (a
slippery slope that). If the latter, I would presume that it means that we should not
take life for no reason. We can take a life for food, to protect ourselves, etc. In
which case, I see no distinction between taking plant life or animal life for food.
If we take it literally it means we shouldn't take *any* life for any reason. It doesn't
say only animal life, so I presume plant life should be included. Or insect life. The
only way to honor that commandment then, it seems to me, is to sit in a sanitized room
without eating anything other than carefully gathered pieces of plants (which has to have
been gathered without killing the plant). To go outside is to risk killing things. To
do almost anything is to risk killing things.
What did the commandment say in the original language? Kill is an English word, and I
presume God did not speak to Moses in English.
rajat
doug h.
In article <59egtq$s...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>,
Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> But for most of the intelligent people on austin.general, yes I would
> expect that they would use the information there as evidence and have
> the intellectual honesty not to dismiss information based on the group
> that is passing along that information. At the same time, I'd expect people
> to be critical and fairly evaluate it. If the ideas are flawed, the
> data incorrect or the reasoning irrational, *then* you dismiss the ideas.
Your data is incorrect. Some advanced humans, including myself,
have evolved and grown large, sharp fangs suitable for tearing
and ripping meat. At the same time, we have grown special teeth
for chewing up veggies. All of these teeth can be 're-grown' if
they get knocked out. You inferior humans will eventually die
out, to be replaced by advanced humans like myself. Consider
yourself a dying breed.
Lane Wimberley
Ah, this thread now suddenly acquires the potential for becoming
interesting (IMHO). Indeed, what did the original Hebrew or Greek
say in this regard (Hebrew was, I presume, the real original language,
although I don't know what remains).
This approach to clarifying and understanding what the Bible is
really about, is the most logical and interesting one, if most
difficult and least favorite among Christian zealots.
Along related lines, I have heard before that the original Hebrew
text for the story of Adam and Eve had both Adam and Eve created
simultaneously as a single entity, similar to "Siamese Twins," and
that when "God created Eve from the rib of Adam" it was really more
that he separated the conjoined Adam and Eve at the rib. (I have
heard that this is supported also in a text of Plato, but I don't know
the reference.) Also, I believe the Hebrew word for "virgin" is
really very similar or the same as the word for "woman," which
potentially puts a very different spin on the nature of the birth of
Christ.
(Hebrew as a written language has letters only for consonent sounds,
and indicates vowels by accents and other modifying (pronounciation)
symbols. Therefore, all words are between three and seven characters
long, and many words derive their meaning from related words by way of
the modifiers. So, for instance, the Hebrew word for "woman,"
"nekeva," derives from the Hebrew "nekev," which, funny enough, means
"hole." Both words are three characters long, with only vowel
indicators being the difference. Room for confusion during
textual translation...?)
Also, does anyone else have any information about the theory that
the infamous "mark of the beast," 666, really is a code representing
the name of the Caesar ruling at the time of Christ? (I believe it
is the sum of the numeric values of the letters of the Caesar's name.
This is verified, I think, by ancient texts translated to latin from
Greek, where the numeric values differ slightly and the number is not
666 but 667 or 668 in the text.) So, the horrible "anti-Christ" that
everyone is waiting for in terror is really a long-dead Roman ruler.
Indeed, what was the original commandment? And, what does it mean to
"kill?" Can we determine what the spirit of the original commandment
was? (I'm reluctant to follow the reasoning that it was "we should
not take life for no reason," as *some* reason can certainly always be
supplied.) King James - he thought he was doing everyone a great
favor. How could he have known?
Ah, this stuff is fun. I hope we can stir some lively conversation
on a.g. Additional info and clarifications abundantly welcomed!
Lane
Charles Herrick
> : >
> : > In article <32B87A...@concentric.net>, cher...@concentric.net
> : > says...
> : > > There are several definitions for the word.
> : >
> : > This is true. In a certain context, one is most appropriate, a fact you
> : > seem unwilling to acknowledge. Would you try to convince me that the
> : > device used to raise my car (a jack) should, in fact, be used to play
> : > card games?
>
> : It is correct that context determines
> : which definition of a word is best.
> : With that firmly ensconced under your
> : concensus belt, I suggest that you
> : now return to the beginning of this
> : thread and reread it. While you're
> : at it, you might want to keep your
> : little pocket dictionary open
> : to the word "context," since it
> : is obvious that you would not know
> : one if it slapped you in the face.
>
> taking of an innocent creature's life.
>
> Someone replied,
> "One who wants to eat. We are, after all, omnivores."
>
>
> You are correct in saying this, because the context for that comment
> was focusing on the meat-eating aspect of the original reply: "One
> who wants to eat" implies that humans *require* meat to live.
>
> But when you expound on this and claim that the original replier's
> usage of "omnivore" demands that we do eat literally *everything*,
> you are incorrect in the context of human consumption: the simple
> use of Occam's Razor indicates that the "carnivore+herbivore"
> definition of "omnivore" takes precedence over your all-encompassing
> choice.
>
> Besides, the original replier was wrong, anyway; humans are *not*
> required to eat meat and meat alone!
I don't want to seem like those whose reliance
on the particular dictionary that sits on
the shelf over their desk reaches religious
proportions, but mine defines a carnivore
as one who eats meat, not one who eats
meat exclusively.
That said, I'd say humans are carnivores,
and herbivores, but definitely not
omnivores, using the second definition
in my dictionary... otherwise, someone
would have eaten that broken glass
in my basement by now.
> : > > Check any decent dictionary. Or use
> : > > your latin and/or greek and linguistics
> : > > and build your understanding of what
> : > > went into building the word yourself.
> : >
> : > The first suggestion is wiser. Even if one knows linguistics, he may not
> : > be able to derive the agreed-upon usage. The English language is full of
> : > words with curious derivation.
> : >
> : > Charles, it's OK to admit you made a mistake. Your rather involved
> : > rationalization is most unbecoming.
>
> : Whenever I've made a mistake, I've admitted it.
> : It's just that I'm almost never wrong.
>
> Oooooo, and he's *humble*, too!
> C'mon, Charles, give us that numerical percentage. Pretty please?
It's a lot damn higher than I want it to be,
but then it's a lot lower than it used to
be when I was older.. I'm so much younger now.
Charles Herrick
Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> I could never hope to aspire to your place in the universe.
Albert,
No need to. The universe has reserved your place
for you.
I assume that when we get to our places,
I've an idea that we'll see
that aspiration is just part of the illusion
that get's us there.
Charles Herrick
Norman Richards wrote:
>
> In article <32BAB1...@concentric.net>,
> Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Oh, yeah, right... like I'm going to
> >use a vegetarian web page put up [...]
>
> No, I'd expect *you* to continue using your complete lack of knowledge on
> most topics and your lack of a basis in reality for most of your ideas.
> That's what I've come to expect from your posts.
>
> expect that they would use the information there as evidence and have
> the intellectual honesty not to dismiss information based on the group
> that is passing along that information.
But that is precisely the appropriate
thing to do with propaganda.
> At the same time, I'd expect people
> to be critical and fairly evaluate it. If the ideas are flawed, the
> data incorrect or the reasoning irrational, *then* you dismiss the ideas.
Wrong, again. Sigh. No one
has to read Das Kapital to
understand that Communism
and Socialism suck... nor
do they have to read Mein
Kampf to know that
Totalitarianism sucks.
To these, I add without
reservation the mumbling
of vegetarians for whom
a diet serves as their
religion.
Creatures... eat 'em if
you kill 'em, and kill 'em
if you want to eat 'em.
Charles Herrick
Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> Interesting site. Some insightful quotes from
> http://www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm :
>
> chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's
> eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion.
>
> ...
>
> All of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences.
> By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death,
> even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future
> experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
>
> ...
>
> Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects
> our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to
> live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
> creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By
> ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into
> the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a
> terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of
> butchered creatures.
>
> ...
>
> species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for
> livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
> impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of
> individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the
> improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat.
> Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this
> decision for this reason and this reason alone.
>
> Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with this? :-)
Thank you, sir, for your generous
investment of time, in all seriousness.
Now, if we could just get these
veganoids to bathe and use
shoe deoderant powder, we'd
really be an evolving species.
Charles Herrick
mon...@io.com wrote:
>
> alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) cited material from
> www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm to support his position that people should
> not eat meat, and concluded with:
> >Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with this? :-)
> sure many will. In fact, let me get in line."
>
> >... with the chemically complex meat ingested,
> >one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. ...
>
> This is simply metaphysical claptrap. I have never seen one piece of
> scientific evidence to substantiate such a claim. To present it as fact
> reduces the credibility of the message to near-zero. Still, I do have a
> few other notes:
>
> The "karmic consequences" will likely be discussed by those who believe
> in the concept, and ignored by others - as it should be.
>
> angry and jealous? Okayyyy ... As long as you're not anthropomorphizing
> or exaggerating unto ludicrousness for effect. (I think I'll pass
>
> >In large measure, the escalating loss of
> >species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for
> >livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
> >impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of
> >meat in the human diet.
>
> transportation needs and the desire to create more *farm* land - you
> know, to grow vegetables as much as to feed grazing animals. Of course,
> it's really a much more complex issue than either of these answers, but
> then, that's my point. To say that eating meat leads directly and in
> large part to the problems above is a simplistic, and therefore pretty
> useless, assertion.
>
> Sorry, friend. I know you tried hard, but you win no points this round.
Sorry friend, but Albert was posting these
snippets in an earnest attempt to make
the very points you cite.
Go back and join the thread from
somewhere near the beginning.
Charles Herrick
Rajat Datta wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 04:25:12 GMT, jpc <jpc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <59fgel$c...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
> > ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) wrote:
> >
> >>>angry and jealous? Okayyyy ... As long as you're not anthropomorphizing
> >>>or exaggerating unto ludicrousness for effect. (I think I'll pass
> >>>entirely on the "grosser chemistries of animal foods" comment.)
> >>>
> >>
> >>can't an eggplant? If these vegetarians are not guilty of anthropomorphizing,
> >>they are guilty of extreme specist-centric racism.
> >>
> >>rajat
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > THOU SHALT NOT KILL
> >
> >One of the ten commandments, eh?
> >Er... so, like, what does KILL mean?
> >
> >People? KILL??? Ummmm, the taking of life???
> >
> >If you kill a person, that's MURDER. It does not read: "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER..."
> >What then is KILL?
> >
> >Definition time.
>
> Well, you can either take that line literally, or interpret what is probably meant (a
> slippery slope that). If the latter, I would presume that it means that we should not
> take life for no reason. We can take a life for food, to protect ourselves, etc. In
> which case, I see no distinction between taking plant life or animal life for food.
>
> If we take it literally it means we shouldn't take *any* life for any reason. It doesn't
> say only animal life, so I presume plant life should be included. Or insect life. The
> only way to honor that commandment then, it seems to me, is to sit in a sanitized room
> without eating anything other than carefully gathered pieces of plants (which has to have
> been gathered without killing the plant). To go outside is to risk killing things. To
> do almost anything is to risk killing things.
>
> What did the commandment say in the original language? Kill is an English word, and I
> presume God did not speak to Moses in English.
Presuming anything about God
is presumtuous.
Don Friedel Jr.
In <59idim$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, jpc <jpc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
<< snip >>
> Hard not to post follow up when this kind of mind exists.
<< snip >>
>Bible thumpers:
>
> THOU SHALT NOT KILL
>
>One of the ten commandments, eh?
>Er... so, like, what does KILL mean?
>
>People? KILL??? Ummmm, the taking of life???
>
>If you kill a person, that's MURDER. It does not read: "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER..."
>What then is KILL?
>
>Definition time.
>
>
>Really, don't email and flame me, I'm just adding something to this thread... keep it here,
>don't think I'm hitting anyone, I'm not... Just comment on the above, eh?
>
>:)
Actually, my understanding of this passage is that the more correct translation
was THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER. The bible clearly gives man dominion
over the land and sea and air, and all manner of beasts upon and in these
environments. Look at the history of many of the Jewish/Christian and Muslim
faiths and you will see that killing was not a problem, as long as it was performed
for a purpose judged to be valid in the eyes of the Lord (as interpreted, amazingly
enough, by humans on earth). (I'm not singling out these religions, just listing a
few of the faiths that have as part of their doctrine the Old Testament, in whatever
name used)
In an attempt to minimize flames, let me say that I am a Christian, but I also
recognize the bloody history that is part of my religion. I also feel that this was
associated more with the nature of man than God, and that Jesus was introduced
when we as a race were reaching a point in history where we were more able to
understand his teachings (which are still, unfortunately, ignored in far too many
cases).
don friedel jr.
(The opinions expressed here are my own. BMC Software, Inc. makes)
(no representations or promises regarding the reliability, )
(completeness, or accuracy of the information provided in this )
(discussion; all readers agree not to rely on or take any action )
(against BMC Software in response to this information. )
Gary
> > > THOU SHALT NOT KILL
> > >
> > >One of the ten commandments, eh?
> > >Er... so, like, what does KILL mean?
I'm not particularly religious myself, but spent a year at Baylor a long
time ago and took a couple of Bible courses. As I recall, the original
language used was a word that is actually better translated as "murder".
That would make sense, since the ancient Hebrews who put the Ten
Commandments on paper (make that parchment, or, if you're a fundamentalist,
stone) were bigtime killers, judging from their own histories. They
killed not only animals (sacrifice, food) and criminals but often every
man, woman and child in a conquered city when "god" ordered it. Of course,
since the word came down from on high, that was not "murder".
You simply cannot have a rational philosophy of life that does not
include killing of other life forms on some level. Even if you outlaw
self-defense, you must pay someone else (police, army) to kill on your
behalf if necessary, otherwise you will not live long. It is impossible to
walk without killing small animals by the thousands and your immune system
kills microbes by the billions to keep you alive.
Life is struggle.
gary
--
========================================
Gary Davis Media -- Television Advertising
E-Mail: ga...@garydavis.com
Web site: http://www.garydavis.com
========================================
mon...@io.com
Charles Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> wrote:
>mon...@io.com wrote:
>> Sorry, friend. I know you tried hard, but you win no points this round.
>
>Sorry friend, but Albert was posting these
>snippets in an earnest attempt to make
>the very points you cite.
>
>Go back and join the thread from
>somewhere near the beginning.
Oops. Yes, I do seem to have mixed up who said what. Sorry 'bout that,
Albert. Thank you, Charles, for being so kind as to point that out. (I
was reading at the beginning; I merely screwed up. It's not the first
time and will certainly not be the last, I'm sorry to say.)
constance l crouch
>Subject: Re: Carnivores eat people who frequent carnivals (was: people who
>kill animals
>Date: 19 Dec 1996 22:00:47 -0600
>In article <59cvj5$27e$1...@boris.eden.com>, Tim McGaughy <tee...@eden.com>
>wrote:
>>One who eats meat, as humans tend to do, cannot be classed as a vegitarian,
>>and must be either a carnivore or an omnivore.
> Actually, I've done some reading up this afternoon after the discussion
>here. I don't think the above statement is entirely accurate. The
>classifications are not quite so cut and dry.
> "
> It turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat meat.
> Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can eat meat, humans can eat meat.
> In fact, even cows can eat meat! Indeed, cows are regularly fed
> rendered meat protein, some of which is from slaughtered cows! It also
> turns out that both carnivores and herbivores can eat plants. Cats
> and dogs digest carbohydrates and will do so even in the wild (by
> eating their the stomach contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which
> are clearly carnivores are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous".
> The Merck Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:
> Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild variety of
> foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables the dog to meet his
> nutritional requirements from a remarkable diversity of diets... Some
> vegetable proteins are... satisfactory sources of amino acids for dogs.
> "
>
> Hope that helps.
>______________________________________________________________________________
>o...@cs.utexas.edu soli deo gloria
Well, all I can tell you is I've been around cats all my life, &
they eat veggies. I've had cats BEG for green beans, french fries,
avacados, even watermelon, tomato and CANTALOUPE (sp?). And I've
seen a dog eat stuff that'd gag a maggot, not even meat. (One reason
I hang with cats more than dogs...;-)
As for me, my religion says it's unlawful to obey those who "forbid"
you to eat meat. We can CHOOSE not to, if we want to, but hey, I LIKE
meat. So long as no-one gets between me & my turkey and dressing, my
BLT, my chili or my Schlotskys, we'll probably get along just fine.
What I think is cruel, and even wierd, is people who have their kids
raise a bull as a PET, then eat it. That has GOT to warp a kid's head.
Incidentally, I've seen some mighty sharp and long canines on some
people -- one the other day on a news program looked like she had
vampire in her genes! So they may not be as pointy as a cat's, but
they aren't ALL so blunt!
Of course, if I had to raise an animal, I couldn't eat it. Guess I'd
turn into a wussie vegetarian, then. So, I follow a double standard,
so what. Most of us do, in one thing or another.
Mags
constance l crouch
In article <MPG.d249a201...@news.earthlink.net> alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) writes:
>From: alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick)
>Subject: Re: people who kill animals
>Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:42:49 -0600
>Interesting site. Some insightful quotes from
>http://www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm :
>Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the
>chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's
>fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-
>eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion.
Um...Jesus ate meat. I can't think of anyone more non-violent
than the Man Who asked His Father to forgive those who murdered Him.
>Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects
>our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to
>live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
>creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By
>ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into
>the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a
>terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of
>butchered creatures.
Oh, brother. Again, Jesus and his followers were meat-eaters, and
they were martyred in horrible deaths without all that claptrap above.
I think the mindset is from some other cause. Like maybe being reared
by people who make them that way.
>...
>Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of
>species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for
>livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
>impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of
>meat in the human diet.
Bull. So to speak.
>No single decision that we can make as
>individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the
>improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat.
>Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this
>decision for this reason and this reason alone.
This is the tiresome rhetoric of the militant vegetarian. I've met
some of these people, and they have a definite agenda. They mean to
make YOU stop eating meat.
I say they should be afraid to try and stop us. After all, we're those
mean, wicked meat-eaters. There's no telling WHAT we'll do! 8->
>FWIW, it's taken from an article entitled "How to Win an Argument
>with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
this? :-)
I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek. (I THINK it was, but veggie-
heads are remarkably humor-challenged, so it's wise to check...|->
Mags
constance l crouch
In article <59fgel$c...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) writes:
>From: ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)
>Subject: Re: people who kill animals
>On 21 Dec 1996 01:17:15 GMT, mon...@io.com <mon...@io.com> wrote:
>>An *egg* experiences anger, jealousy, *fear of death*? A shellfish gets
>>angry and jealous? Okayyyy ... As long as you're not anthropomorphizing
>>or exaggerating unto ludicrousness for effect. (I think I'll pass
>>entirely on the "grosser chemistries of animal foods" comment.)
Hee! Good one, Monica.
Incidentally, re the original question about killing innocent animals --
just how do we KNOW they're all that "innocent?" Anyone who's ever lived
with a cat or dog and been even a smidgen observant will swear to their pets
KNOWING when they've broken the rules. They sure can LOOK awfully guilty
when they've just shat on your new carpet!!!
The day one of mine peed on the stove I threated to cook it for supper
if it tried THAT again!!! So far, I haven't eaten any kitty-fricasee.
A few hushpuppies, but that's all.
(wink.wink.nudge.nudge -- signal for the humor-impaired)
>Very good. In fact, if an egg can experience anger and jealousy,
>why can't an eggplant? If these vegetarians are not guilty of
>anthropomorphizing, they are guilty of extreme specist-centric racism.
ROTFLOL&PIMPfunny!!!
Anyway, the reason I'm posting is, I kept waiting for someone to check
in on what Rajat said, but surprisingly, no-one has, so I will.
If you have a proper translation, it does INDEED say "Don't murder."
(Oh, ok, "Thou shalt not *murder.*" Yeesh....traditionalists...|-)
Not only that, it's clear if you put it in context with the rest of
the scriptures that PREMEDITATED MURDER, not just killing, is what
is strictly prohibited. War, self-defense, accidental killing,
sacrifice of animals...the list is virtually endless re the reasons
and ways and times to kill that're ok.
In fact, "To everything there is a season...a time to kill, a time
to die."
This kind of confusion in some posts is what comes of being a when-
you-feel-like-it biblical reader, one who's interested in nothing
more than picking something out of context to bolster a poor argument.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Mags.
Ted Samsel
As a bbq chef, I was once asked to officiate at a vegetarian bbq.
It was a disaster. We couldn't find a volunteer.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Norman Richards
In article <clcrouch.2...@mail.utexas.edu>,
constance l crouch <clcr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>As for me, my religion says it's unlawful to obey those who "forbid"
>you to eat meat.
Last time I checked, nobody was trying to pass a law against it. :)
>What I think is cruel, and even wierd, is people who have their kids
>raise a bull as a PET, then eat it. That has GOT to warp a kid's head.
>Of course, if I had to raise an animal, I couldn't eat it. Guess I'd
>turn into a wussie vegetarian, then. So, I follow a double standard,
>so what. Most of us do, in one thing or another.
I've always thought so. I think this is related to the real reason
I became a vegetarian. After looking at animals we kept (as pets)
and realizing I wouldn't find it right to kill them, I then realized
that something inside of me would object to needlessly killing any
animal. I couldn't, in good conscience, kill a chicken with my bare
hands or kill one of the cows the walked around next to our house.
I began to feel it would be hypocritical for me to eat meat that
someone else killed if I myself would be unable to kill the animal.
I would be killing the animals indirectly and unnecessarily. That is
just plain inconsistant with my lifestyle. So, considering that
meat is not necessary (and quite harmful to) human nutrition, I made
the leap.
And as a note - not a personal attack - I'd say that not everyone
has to live by a double standard. If you find yourself being a hypocrite,
just admit it and make changes in your life. We are all wrong somtimes -
or at least I know I am. And we are all hypocrites at some time - but
the key is what you do about it. Simply "accepting" it and ignoring
an incosistanciy is probably not the best solution.
What would your religion which "says it's unlawful to obey those who
'forbid' you to eat meat" say on this?
Norman Richards
>>with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
>this? :-)
>
>I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek. (I THINK it was, but veggie-
>heads are remarkably humor-challenged, so it's wise to check...|->
The quotes were taken out of context, from a paper written by a Hindu
trying to explain from a Hindu perspective why one should be a vegetarian.
They don't make much sense to me or to you because we aren't Hindu.
(And, in honesty, I'm not sure they would make sense to someone who is -
but I'm certainly not in a position to say)
Context is a wonderful thing. :)
Rajat Datta
On 30 Dec 1996 10:29:01 -0600, Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I began to feel it would be hypocritical for me to eat meat that
>someone else killed if I myself would be unable to kill the animal.
>I would be killing the animals indirectly and unnecessarily. That is
>just plain inconsistant with my lifestyle. So, considering that
>meat is not necessary (and quite harmful to) human nutrition, I made
>the leap.
>
> And as a note - not a personal attack - I'd say that not everyone
>has to live by a double standard. If you find yourself being a hypocrite,
>just admit it and make changes in your life. We are all wrong somtimes -
>or at least I know I am. And we are all hypocrites at some time - but
>the key is what you do about it. Simply "accepting" it and ignoring
>an incosistanciy is probably not the best solution.
>
I don't have any problems with consuming things that I haven't killed
myself, or that I wouldn't do because I wouldn't enjoy it. I wouldn't
enjoy killing a tree, but I live in houses that are basically made of
wood.
I have a pet dog that I wouldn't kill. I also have several trees around
my property I wouldn't kill. But I have no problem making a distinction
between them and animals raised for meat or trees raised for wood.
And finally, I still see no difference between killing animals for food
and killing plants for food. How is killing plants better than killing
animals?
rajat
Rajat Datta
On 30 Dec 1996 12:10:46 -0600, Norman Richards <o...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <clcrouch.2...@mail.utexas.edu>,
>constance l crouch <clcr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>FWIW, it's taken from an article entitled "How to Win an Argument
>>>with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
>>this? :-)
>>
>>I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek. (I THINK it was, but veggie-
>>heads are remarkably humor-challenged, so it's wise to check...|->
>
> The quotes were taken out of context, from a paper written by a Hindu
>trying to explain from a Hindu perspective why one should be a vegetarian.
>They don't make much sense to me or to you because we aren't Hindu.
>(And, in honesty, I'm not sure they would make sense to someone who is -
>but I'm certainly not in a position to say)
>
> Context is a wonderful thing. :)
It certainly wouldn't make much sense to the millions of Hindus who
eat fish and meat. Certainly if you suggested to the average West
Bengali that he stop eating fish, he would laugh his head off.
rajat
Albert Nurick
In article <5a90j6$9...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
> The quotes were taken out of context, from a paper written by a Hindu
> trying to explain from a Hindu perspective why one should be a vegetarian.
Out of context? Hardly. I gave a reference to the entire article for
those desiring more (i.e. complete) context.
Albert Nurick
In article <clcrouch.2...@mail.utexas.edu>,
clcr...@mail.utexas.edu says...
> >with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
> this? :-)
>
> I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek. (I THINK it was, but veggie-
> heads are remarkably humor-challenged, so it's wise to check...|->
It was completely tongue-in-cheek. I eat beef, chicken, pork or seafood
every day.
I just wonder how the self-righteous vegetarians can live with themselves
after they contribute to the needless slaughter of our vegetable
brothers. They then compound their crimes by calling themselves
"Vegetarians", taking the name of their victims in vain. I'm aghast.
Bill Gribble
ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) writes:
> And finally, I still see no difference between killing animals for food
> and killing plants for food. How is killing plants better than killing
> animals?
Well, there's the obvious difference in resource consumption. Plants
produce protein and sugars from the sun, carbon dioxide, and water,
plus assorted minerals from the soil. First-order consumers (or
whatever the biological term of art for herbivores is; I'm a computer
geek, not a biologist), like cows, have to consume a tremendous amount
of plant protein before being brought to market.
Not to mention high-level predators like tuna, which are basically at
the top of their food chain. Eating tuna is (at least from a
resource-utilization standpoint) more or less like eating bald eagle.
Every tuna steak on your plate requires the consumption of tons of
smaller fish by that tuna, which in turn consumed tons of other sea
life before being eaten themselves. That's just wasteful, and sucks
energy out of the ocean's ecosystem for no reason. It's the ocean
that provides the air we breathe, that regulates our weather, provides
water for us to grow crops, etc. We have to respect that, and make
sure that we aren't wantonly using a resource that's limited. The
world's fisheries are dying fast, at a rate that is way, way more
alarming than the ozone hole or nuclear wast disposal or global
warming or any of the other disasters-in-progress that we have
inflicted on ourselves.
I don't give a shit about the sanctity of an individual fish's
life. Much less a cow's life; I wish that all of those disease-ridden,
shit-covered, inbred pieces of mobile stupidity would just disappear
in a mooing puff of smoke. Or get eaten by those who choose to do so,
and never be replaced. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford to buy
fish, chicken, beef, or a turkey on Thanksgiving. But I turn my
lights off when I leave the house, because I've weighed the cost of
leaving them on against the benefits and found the costs are more than
I want to pay for the benefits. I weigh the cost to me of eating fish
and meat against the benefits, and while I certainly could do it, it
just seems foolish and wasteful, so I don't.
I'm sure this post will sink unnoticed into the flames but I sort of
feel like I should say something.
Bill Gribble
Norman Richards
In article <MPG.d31cce31...@news.earthlink.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
>In article <5a90j6$9...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, o...@cs.utexas.edu says...
>> The quotes were taken out of context, from a paper written by a Hindu
>> trying to explain from a Hindu perspective why one should be a vegetarian.
>
>Out of context? Hardly. I gave a reference to the entire article for
>those desiring more (i.e. complete) context.
They were out of context because you presented them as if they were valid
and normal arguments in favor of vegetarianism when in fact they merely
present the Hindu perspective (or at least *a* Hindu perspective) on
animal consumption.
By presenting (IMHO) absurd quotes from an article that represents a
single narrow perspective on the issue and presenting them as id they
were normative of the vegetarian movement is, to me, taking things far
out of context.
To your credit, you did post the URL. However, I really don't believe anyone
would have bothered to look at the paper to see the context after seeing
how absurd the arguments were. And thus people would completely miss the\
point that the article in question was written from the persepctive of (and
for) a cultural/religious group that is completely and totally foreign to
most of us.
Albert Nurick
In article <873ewnb...@firetrap.cs.utexas.edu>, gr...@cs.utexas.edu
says...
> Not to mention high-level predators like tuna, which are basically at
> the top of their food chain. Eating tuna is (at least from a
> resource-utilization standpoint) more or less like eating bald eagle.
> Every tuna steak on your plate requires the consumption of tons of
> smaller fish by that tuna, which in turn consumed tons of other sea
> life before being eaten themselves. That's just wasteful, and sucks
> energy out of the ocean's ecosystem for no reason.
As far as I know, tuna aren't ranched, they're caught wild in their
natural habitat.
So by eating tuna, one helps perpetuate the harvesting of these
predators, which otherwise would consume vast quantities of resources
from the ocean's ecosystems.
How is this wasteful?
Bill Gribble
alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) writes:
> As far as I know, tuna aren't ranched, they're caught wild in their
> natural habitat.
>
> So by eating tuna, one helps perpetuate the harvesting of these
> predators, which otherwise would consume vast quantities of resources
> from the ocean's ecosystems.
As far as I can tell, tuna and their food chain came into being long
before commercial trawlers started catching them. Maybe something
like a few million years before. Tuna are a PART OF the ocean
ecosystem, and so any energy they consume within it stays within it.
I'm just saying that when you take something out of its natural
ecosystem, you have to be aware of the impact. A kilogram of sardines
is still a kilogram of fish, but taking it out of the sea has a only a
tiny fraction of the impact of taking a kilogram of tuna, because
sardines are at a much lower level of their food chain. To replace a
kilogram of tuna (i.e. to restore the ecosystem to its original state
after removing one) costs many, many times as much as replacing a
kilogram of sardine, and that costs many times more than replacing a
kilogram of algae or diatoms.
Bill Gribble
Albert Nurick
In article <87k9py8...@firetrap.cs.utexas.edu>, gr...@cs.utexas.edu
says...
> alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) writes:
> > As far as I know, tuna aren't ranched, they're caught wild in their
> > natural habitat.
> >
> > So by eating tuna, one helps perpetuate the harvesting of these
> > predators, which otherwise would consume vast quantities of resources
> > from the ocean's ecosystems.
>
> As far as I can tell, tuna and their food chain came into being long
> before commercial trawlers started catching them. Maybe something
> like a few million years before. Tuna are a PART OF the ocean
> ecosystem, and so any energy they consume within it stays within it.
And your point is? If a tuna consumes (for the sake of argument) 100
times its mass in other fish, by killing the tuna (and making it into
Starkist), you save all the biomass that the tuna would have eaten in the
future.
This is analogous to the results of overhunting land-based predators; the
prey animals multiply without the natural pruning of their populations
performed by the predators. Considering the richness of life in the sea,
(and thus the availability of food) this could result in dramatic
increases in the populations of creatures under the tuna in the food
chain.
Since I think your point is that it's wasteful to eat tuna, the results
don't support your premise.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's good to have lots of tuna to
consume lots of biomass, or it's better to have lots of uneaten smaller
animals.
> I'm just saying that when you take something out of its natural
> ecosystem, you have to be aware of the impact.
True, but it's not what you were saying.
> A kilogram of sardines
> is still a kilogram of fish, but taking it out of the sea has a only a
> tiny fraction of the impact of taking a kilogram of tuna, because
> sardines are at a much lower level of their food chain.
Wrong. Allowing the tuna to hunt throughout its lifespan will have a
much greater impact.
The tuna you've taken from the sea has *already* had its impact. The sea
doesn't "know" what type of fish you're removing; the process of removing
the tuna doesn't have any effect on the past.
> To replace a
> kilogram of tuna (i.e. to restore the ecosystem to its original state
> after removing one) costs many, many times as much as replacing a
> kilogram of sardine, and that costs many times more than replacing a
> kilogram of algae or diatoms.
This sounds like a hypothetical argument that you don't fully understand.
How does one "replace a kilogram of tuna"? What would this accomplish?
What is this "cost" you're referring to?
Chuck Herrick
Bill Gribble wrote:
>
> alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) writes:
> > As far as I know, tuna aren't ranched, they're caught wild in their
> > natural habitat.
> >
> > So by eating tuna, one helps perpetuate the harvesting of these
> > predators, which otherwise would consume vast quantities of resources
> > from the ocean's ecosystems.
>
> As far as I can tell, tuna and their food chain came into being long
> before commercial trawlers started catching them. Maybe something
> like a few million years before. Tuna are a PART OF the ocean
> ecosystem, and so any energy they consume within it stays within it.
>
> is still a kilogram of fish, but taking it out of the sea has a only a
> tiny fraction of the impact of taking a kilogram of tuna, because
> kilogram of tuna (i.e. to restore the ecosystem to its original state
> after removing one) costs many, many times as much as replacing a
> kilogram of sardine, and that costs many times more than replacing a
> kilogram of algae or diatoms.
This is just a poorly disguised rework of the
"look up and down the food chain... look
how high it is!" urban myth, long a
favorite of vege-heads everywhere.
It is completely without scientific,
historical, _OR_ religious merit,
much like the rest of the tripe
parroted by the vege-community.
You can't argue with people whose
agenda it is fundamentally to
return human civilization to a
pre-agrarian state, where homo sapiens
supposedly lived in some fantasy
where they stumbled around munching
on berries and nuts while singing
the precursors of Joan Baez folk
songs.
Don't even bother with the observation
that before homo sapiens had hardly
managed to walk upright, they were
throwing rocks at scavengers, in
a fight for the dead and rotting flesh
of the victim of some predator.
You can't argue with people who can
neither wash their feet nor think
their way out of a kleenex box....
in fact, the best thing to do is
to fire up the barbie, and in response
enjoy yet another morsel of charcoal-
broiled flesh from the creature of
your choice, with double relish.
--
mailto:cher...@concentric.net
I speak only for myself.
I reserve the right to copyright all my email and netnews posts.
Bill Gribble
Chuck Herrick <cher...@concentric.net> writes:
> You can't argue with people whose agenda it is fundamentally to
> return human civilization to a pre-agrarian state, where homo
> sapiens supposedly lived in some fantasy where they stumbled around
> munching on berries and nuts while singing the precursors of Joan
> Baez folk songs.
Painting with a pretty broad brush there, Chuck. I firmly realize
that there are way, way, way too many people here to live in any way
like you're talking about. Subsistence farming and hunter/gathering
works for everybody only when the population of the planet was in the
tens of millions. We are dependent on specialized economies and
technologically-assisted agriculture techniques to feed everybody, and
we will be as long as there are so many of us.
I was just trying to point out that it might be worth considering that
there is a cost associated with every exploitation of our world. And
I don't mean 'exploitation' as a pejorative, just in the sense of
'use'. Why take actions where the cost outweighs the benefit? Humans
have the power to destroy the Earth's ability to support us...
doesn't it make sense to minimize the risk of that happening?
Eat steak all you want. I don't want any, thanks; too expensive for
me.
Bill Gribble
Robin Wilson
} >Interesting site. Some insightful quotes from
} >http://www.newveg.av.org/argument.htm :
}
} >Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the
} >chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's
} >fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-
} >eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion.
} blah blah blah
} >No single decision that we can make as
} >individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the
} >improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat.
} >Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this
} >decision for this reason and this reason alone.
}
} >FWIW, it's taken from an article entitled "How to Win an Argument
} >with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
} this? :-)
Actually, I think it is the water. Think about it, no single thing more
completely pervades _every_ living thing on earth... We obviously get all
our evil from _water_.
My suggestion is that we stop drinking and eating _anything_ that has water
in it. You go first, I'll catch up to you later.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine! ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin D. Wilson ro...@pswtech.com PSW Technologies
701 Canyon Bend Dr. 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy
Pflugerville, TX 78660 Austin, TX 78759
(512) 251-1737 (512) 343-6666
Robin Wilson
alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) wrote:
} In article <clcrouch.2...@mail.utexas.edu>,
} clcr...@mail.utexas.edu says...
} alb...@data.net (Albert Nurick) writes:
} > >FWIW, it's taken from an article entitled "How to Win an Argument
} > >with a Meat Eater". What intelligent human could argue with
} > this? :-)
} >
} > heads are remarkably humor-challenged, so it's wise to check...|->
}
} It was completely tongue-in-cheek. I eat beef, chicken, pork or seafood
} every day.
}
} I just wonder how the self-righteous vegetarians can live with themselves
} after they contribute to the needless slaughter of our vegetable
} brothers. They then compound their crimes by calling themselves
} "Vegetarians", taking the name of their victims in vain. I'm aghast.
I once read the following quote -- but I can't remember who said it first:
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegitarian because I hate
plants!"
I'll bet that most Veg-heads feel this way, and are simply hiding their banal
nature from the rest of us...
Vegetables of the world UNITE! Overthrown the veg-head imperialists!