Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[là bạn điên]

My point on wool has not been refuted by anyone, so I'll leave you with that point. Wool is an absolutely necessary fibre. A woollen jumper will keep you warm even when wet, and a synthetic one will not.

Us civilised people wear layers when outside. a Wicking under layer, which can be merino wool BUT synthetic is half teh price and dries faster and then various higher layers generally of synthetic fleeces and then this is the hard part for you.....a Goretex Outer layer.

[Whateverist]

enrico and bennyboy arguing for the same side a coincidence? I think not.

[bennyboy]

enrico and bennyboy arguing for the same side a coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, because I've been fully supportive of his arguments all throughout this thread, right? Have you actually read more than the last page of this thread, or are you just trolling me? And since the answer to that is factually clear based on my actual responses to enrico, let me go ahead with the obvious follow-up: WHY are you trolling me?

---

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMXk5Z6-IHY

This is the nearest human relative, hunting, killing, and eating an animal. Capish?

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?

Have I said anything about the morality of eating meat? If 90% of people will pocket the money and not attempt to contact the owner, then I can say, "People are primarily selfish when it comes to wallets." Just like if 6/7 people eat meat, they are primarily omnivorous.

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.

Except that everyone I know, and most of the people you know as well, eat both meat and vegetables. Do you actually know what "omnivore" means?

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?

Yes, it is. The salient feature of being an omnivore is eating both meat an non-meat foods. People do this, as do chimps. Because that's what "omnivore" means.

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.

*holds up mirror, wondering if chimp will recognize its own reflection in its comments*

---

Enrico, I'm a tried-and-true vegetarian. Does it not bother you at all that even other vegetarians want you to stop making up goofy arguments that contradict observable reality?

[Little Rik]

This is the nearest human relative, hunting, killing, and eating an animal. Capish?

This follow logic.
As i already said life in the jungle is very tough so when their natural food is not available or not available in the proper quantity they eat meat and when this become an habit then they will eat it all the time so their teeth and digestive system also change over time unlike human beings which have kept a real fruit, nuts, grain aspect structure.
The reason is that human beings have been eating meat for shorter time then chimps usually mainly during the ice age.

[James2014]

Oh dear.

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
Nexus magazine 2000

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perfe...eat-toxins 2008

http://wellnessmama.com/3684/is-soy-healthy/

These are some very poor and biased sources. For example when they consider the evidence that phytochemicals in soy cause feminisation in men the studies they quote are select animal experiments, yet they completely "forget" to mention that studies in humans show no effect. As the title of the study says "Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men"

I think the Chris Kresser guy is the worst, mainly because he lists so high in lots of google searches and has appeared on a few tv shows, so people assume he actually know what he is talking about. Most of the time he just finds one study that provides some evidence that supports his point then ignores every other study that might show the opposite. He also makes really stupid errors that just happen to support is little paelo diet fetish. For example when he writes in the piece about the "dangers" of grains in the section named "Cereal grains: the unhealthiest “health food” on the planet?", he explicitly mentions the grains "wheat, corn, rice, barley, sorghum, oats, rye and millet", and then goes off on a rant against gluten. Now let alone the fact that he then cherry picks his sources, half of these grains don't even contain gluten!!!

If you want to read a review not written by random attention seeking pseudo-celebrity "nutritionist" you should use google scholar rather than google. Then you can find reviews of the topic that actually try to look at all the evidence and are puiblished in peer reviewed journals, such as this one....

"Soyfoods represent first and foremost a healthful means by which to obtain protein and to add diversity to the diet, because most Americans consume legumes to a very limited extent. Independent of nutrient content, evidence in support of soyfoods providing health benefits such as reducing the risk of various chronic diseases ranges from very speculative to very encouraging. Overall, with the exception of those who are allergic, there is little evidence soyfoods are contraindicated for any individual. In the same way that nutritionists recommend whole grains over refined grains and apples over apple juice, minimally processed soyfoods should be emphasized over more highly-processed forms of soy. However, the latter can still be healthful options for those interested in incorporating more soy into their diet. "

[bennyboy]

This is the nearest human relative, hunting, killing, and eating an animal. Capish?

This follow logic.
As i already said life in the jungle is very tough so when their natural food is not available or not available in the proper quantity they eat meat and when this become an habit then they will eat it all the time so their teeth and digestive system also change over time unlike human beings which have kept a real fruit, nuts, grain aspect structure.
The reason is that human beings have been eating meat for shorter time then chimps usually mainly during the ice age.

In establishing the history of meat-eating in hominids, you need logic: tooth wear and shape, presence of various isotopes, etc., as well as evidence from camp sites and caves.

However, in establishing meat-eating in humans, all you need are eyes. It's obvious that people are omnivores: you see them eating all kinds of foods, including meat, all the time. There's really nothing to debate, and you're wasting your time with all this.

Maybe you should circle back to some kind of point. Are you just trying to show that it's not necessary to eat meat to be healthy? Because, right now, it seems your argument is "We aren't naturally omnivorous, so we shouldn't eat meat." And that's a horrible argument.

[c172]

Geez, my Mt. Soledad thread seems like a game of Candyland played by underslept 6 year olds compared to this.

[Little Rik]

In establishing the history of meat-eating in hominids, you need logic: tooth wear and shape, presence of various isotopes, etc., as well as evidence from camp sites and caves.

I got bad news for you mister.
If you really want to dig the remains of the past then you will be surprised to find that our far far ancestors have similar characteristics to the present humans.
No sign of whatsoever that he was omnivore, and this guy was living over a million years ago.

"Eurydice", Australopithecus robustus
Discovered by André Keyser in 1994 at the Drimolen cave in South Africa. Estimated age is between 1.5 and 2.0 million years. This is an almost complete skull and lower jaw of a female, one of the most complete hominid skulls ever found, and the first significant fossil of a female robustus. A fossil of a male robustus lower jaw, nicknamed Orpheus (DNH 8), was found a few inches away from it. (Keyser 2000)

However, in establishing meat-eating in humans, all you need are eyes. It's obvious that people are omnivores: you see them eating all kinds of foods, including meat, all the time. There's really nothing to debate, and you're wasting your time with all this.

What a bankrupt theory you ever bring up!
It is amazing!
The food habit is like the fashion habit.
It comes and go according so many factors.
My grandparents use to eat meat in small quantity once a week.
Their proteins came from beans, nuts and whole cereals.
Now it is a fashion to eat meat everyday.

Maybe you should circle back to some kind of point. Are you just trying to show that it's not necessary to eat meat to be healthy? Because, right now, it seems your argument is "We aren't naturally omnivorous, so we shouldn't eat meat." And that's a horrible argument.

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

[No_God]

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

Please speak for yourself.

[StoryBook]

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

Tell me why I do not salivate when I see raw vegetables.

Anything raw does not make me salivate, but when you start cooking it you can smell it then you salivate.

Seriously though, salivating is just the anticipation of food. Ever heard of Ivan Pavlovs Dog Experiment(were he rings the bell and gives dogs food)? We condition ourselves to salivate by cooking food. The dogs in the experiment still salivated even when no food was present.