(February 7, 2014 at 7:32 am)Aractus Wrote: JG, soy is toxic to humans and other animals. It's not a natural product at all and I don't know why you're appealing to it.

Gee, i never knew that Chinese and Japanese people are living zombies!
They eat tofu (made with soia) and drink soiabean milk for God knows how many generations so if soia is toxic then they can't be living human beings.
You are very funny Ar.

Quote:if you ate it raw you'd be sick.

I never seen anybody eating raw beans whether it is soia or any other type of beans.
Even idiots know that beans need to be cooked before eating.

(February 7, 2014 at 7:32 am)Aractus Wrote: JG, soy is toxic to humans and other animals. It's not a natural product at all and I don't know why you're appealing to it.

Furthermore, those with allergies against soy products as I've mentioned earlier cannot eat (almost) any processed foods - 1. because soy is added to most processed foods and 2. because it doesn't have to be labelled and they have to make the assumption that unless otherwise stated it contains soy.

So no, you cannot use soy as an example because you only find it in processed foods and if you ate it raw you'd be sick.

Can you give me a guarantee that soy is safe or healthy? No you can't. No one can. We might well find in the years to come that soy is looked down upon as a filthy carcinogen, the fact of the matter is that at the moment ignorance is bliss and just like the tobacco industry, the food industry isn't exactly wanting to find out that soy is a bad product.

If you have an ethical responsibility when it comes to food it is to: eat healthy. All other considerations, environmental, animal welfare, etc, are secondary concerns nothing should come before your own health when it comes to food.

I used soy as an example because it proves you are wrong. There are however other foods that contain complete protein, such as quinoa. Again, here is the amino acid profile, which amino acids in quinoa are lacking?

Soy is not toxic, and while concerns have been raised about psuedo - estrogens in soy, these same compounds have been shown to be protective against cancer and there is no evidence they actually cause harm in people.. That is why soy consumption has been associated with reduced all cause mortality. . People in Okinawa have a huge soya consumption and they as a population are some of the longest lived people on earth. The evidence that soy is harmful to people is severely lacking, whereas the evidence that meat is harmful is overwhelming. I have no idea what a 'natural' product is, but since it is abundantly clear you fail to understand why appealing to nature is a falacy, I wont labour the point. As for eating raw soy making one sick, eating raw potatoes would make one sick. Eating raw meat would make people sick. We invented cooking for exactly this reason , it destroys toxins and bacteria and increases the available energy content in food. So what?

I cant guarantee that soy is not harmful, one could be allergic for example, but there are alternatives eg quinoa or a mx of grains and pulses. For example eating Brown Rice, which is slightly deficient in lysine,is complemented by eating kidney beanswhich have high levels of lysine. Health is important, but it does not make sense to say it trumps ethical considerations. for example just because forcibly experiment on humans might allow the discovery of new medicines does not justify such an abuse of other peoples rights. Regardless all the evidence I have presented demonstrates that a vegan diet is healthy. Eats my meat is unnecessary and cruel.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: Enrico, I'm vegetarian, but even I think this line of argument is full of shit. Go back to caveman fire pits, and you can dig up bone shards, split open so cavemen could get at the marrow, etc. Humans have strong, well-rooted canine teeth, which are very clearly well-suited to biting into meat.

I don't think you ever seen the canine teeth of a hippo.
They are bigger then those of a lion and yet hippos are 100% vegetarian.
Horses too have canine teeth and so a lot of other fully vegetarian animals.
What about elephants with their tusks?
If you still are not getting the message i will explain to you.
Canine teeth or tusk are not for eating meat but for scaring and eventually fight enemies.
Capish?

Quote:Another hint that people are omnivorous is that there are 7 billion people, and maybe 1 billion are vegetarian. 6/7 is not a freak accident-- that's obviously the norm. My argument is that the norm is not better. My argument is that despite an evolved liking for meat, we have the capacity to care enough about other animals not to kill them when we have other means of food-production at our disposal.

Your argument is totally bankrupt.
The number means absolutely nothing.
If i drop my wallet with $ 100 on the ground you will find that 90% of the people who find it will pick it up and keep it while maybe only 10 % will try to contact the owner so they can return the wallet.
Does this means that 90 % are right and the 10 % wrong or the opposite?

Quote:But making shit up doesn't help anybody. It just serves to discredit vegetarians who DON'T spew shit.

I did show that the theory that man is omnivore is totally bankrupt by show that since man is man he has never being omnivore.
I show what an omnivore look like and i show that man is totally different.
I show that man does not salivate for raw meat while omnivore do salivate for.
I show that the the digestive system is different.
Is this shit?
I do understand that for someone who is stuck in the dogma of ignorance is quite difficult to admit that they are wrong but that is normal too.
I never expect that people living in the gutter of dogma admit that they are wrong.
That is why the rot is so difficult to eradicate.

---

These are the teeth of a vegetarian animal. (hippo)

---

(February 6, 2014 at 11:35 am)No_God Wrote: I'm not sure if this was mentioned but one of our closest relatives the Chimp which we share 99% of our DNA with is an omnivore. Jane Goodall observed this behavior and documented it in 1960.

The fact that the Chimp eat meat does not means that by nature they are omnivore.
Lift in the jungle is very tough.
When their normal food (fruit, nuts) is not available in order to survive they eat meat.
This is also a peculiarity of human beings especially during the ice ages when their normal food was very hard to get.
Once you use something that is not in your nature for long time you tend to make an habit of.
That of course does not mean that it is normal.
If it would be normal then cardiovascular diseases would be almost unknown but as we know they grow as the meat habit grows.

(February 7, 2014 at 10:14 am)enrico Wrote: I don't think you ever seen the canine teeth of a hippo.
They are bigger then those of a lion and yet hippos are 100% vegetarian.
Horses too have canine teeth and so a lot of other fully vegetarian animals.
What about elephants with their tusks?
If you still are not getting the message i will explain to you.
Canine teeth or tusk are not for eating meat but for scaring and eventually fight enemies.
Capish?

You are a fucking idiot.

(February 7, 2014 at 10:14 am)enrico Wrote: Your argument is totally bankrupt.
The number means absolutely nothing.
If i drop my wallet with $ 100 on the ground you will find that 90% of the people who find it will pick it up and keep it while maybe only 10 % will try to contact the owner so they can return the wallet.
Does this means that 90 % are right and the 10 % wrong or the opposite?

Not the same thing at all.

(February 7, 2014 at 10:14 am)enrico Wrote: I did show that the theory that man is omnivore is totally bankrupt by show that since man is man he has never being omnivore.
I show what an omnivore look like and i show that man is totally different.
I show that man does not salivate for raw meat while omnivore do salivate for.
I show that the the digestive system is different.
Is this shit?
I do understand that for someone who is stuck in the dogma of ignorance is quite difficult to admit that they are wrong but that is normal too.

You fucking liar. You have shown, none of these things at all. All you have done is assert over and over again that humans are not omnivores and show 3 pictures now. That is not evidence, that is not proof, you have shown absolutely nothing except your own ignorance.

(February 7, 2014 at 10:14 am)enrico Wrote: The fact that the Chimp eat meat does not means that by nature they are omnivore.

Yes is fucking well does! Do you even know what an omnivore is?

You are a disgusting human being, you really are. You are simply and blatantly lying. Even poes don't act as stupid as you. Do you understand what a poe is? A poe acts stupid on purpose. Do you now understand the level of insult I am directing at you? You write more stupid shit than people who try and write stupid shit. Conclusion: you are fucking stupid
And I didn't overlook the fact that you ignored my previous post, yet again

---

The fact that someone in the 21st century, In a first world country, with access to the internet, television and libraries, can be this ignorant about the world around them, is disgraceful.

(February 7, 2014 at 7:32 am)Aractus Wrote:

---

JG, soy is toxic to humans and other animals. It's not a natural product at all and I don't know why you're appealing to it.

Furthermore, those with allergies against soy products as I've mentioned earlier cannot eat (almost) any processed foods - 1. because soy is added to most processed foods and 2. because it doesn't have to be labelled and they have to make the assumption that unless otherwise stated it contains soy.

So no, you cannot use soy as an example because you only find it in processed foods and if you ate it raw you'd be sick.

Can you give me a guarantee that soy is safe or healthy? No you can't. No one can. We might well find in the years to come that soy is looked down upon as a filthy carcinogen, the fact of the matter is that at the moment ignorance is bliss and just like the tobacco industry, the food industry isn't exactly wanting to find out that soy is a bad product.

---