I'm a Jain Vegetarian/Fruitarian

[HMS Thunder Child]

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

So now you are going on some kind of socio-cultural rant? Nice, but red herrings don't sit on my palate well.

I mean seriously, I don't know why you even took the position you did. Arguing that humans are so powerful as to avoid decay and aging? Really? More and more you are starting to drift into my mental 'Troll' column. You will, if you are not careful, find yourself with Pockybot, Demon of the X Shadow, and Suicidesoldier as bedfellows.

[Bored]

That you failed to grasp my original point does not make it a red herring.

I never once argued that they could avoid decay or aging. I even explained it to you after you expressed confusion the first time. I said that human society has longevity, which places it outside of the rest of the organisms on the planet. That includes the food cycle. We have manipulated it to our own advantage. Our largest enemies are humans themselves, bacteria, viruses, and the Earth itself. Everything else is small potatoes. We are rather unique.

If that's your 'original point', then you didn't even get your own argument. The topic of discussion was human's place on the biological process referred to as the circle of life. Need I cite for you your own words and the comment which prefaced it that in no way mentions society at all?

The only possible thing I can see here to explain it is that you don't know what biology is, as you seem to confuse the circle of life (a biological concept) with social standing (a sociological concept).

You also forgot mold. ;P

[Tired]

The topic of discussion was whatever my point of contention with Mei's argument I took, before you hopped in.

Except you're wrong. My biological knowledge, while definitely rudimentary, is not weak. Humans affect biology. We also affect ecology, which is what you're seeking to describe, not biology. The circle of life is influenced by the members. Humans, by manipulating and controlling the circle largely remove themselves from it.

Exactly my point; the argument she made concerned absotively-positlutely NO sociological concepts or notions. Neither did your original response to that, nor did your comment to me. You have, as I noted, gone down an entirely irrelevant trail because you did not know that humans decay, all-mighty power and influence notwithstanding.

Its just pure lol-ocaust to me that you continue to defend this point.

[Bored]

It's an erroneous simplification of ecology into a children's movie tagline. What comes out, goes back in. That is the premise of the circle of life. When they are unbalanced, there is no circle. Ergo, you are wrong. So quit it.

[Annoyed]

The Holocaust isn't amusing. I think the internet has changed you for the worse, Riviera.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Mika Talanis

HMS Thunder Child

Mika Talanis

tfwbtr

Fermionic

Fruitarians only eat fruit. Vegetables aren't fruit. If you eat vegetables, your aren't a fruitarian.

I don't eat vegetables. heart

Then why does your title say you are a vegetarian? That's a bit confusing.

[Informative]

Vegetarianism generally only implies the refusal to consume meat.

Considering the fact I am a Vegan,I am aware of that. I assume you didn't read what the OP said? She stated she does not eat vegetables, only fruits, hence why she said she is a fruitarian... however she also says in the title she is a vegetarian.

[Earnest]

It is redundant, but not really problematic.

[hiya im chaya]

SwimmyCat

prof-whoriarty

"intellectual discussion" and not an argument?
seriously OP stfu I saw your other thread. you want nothing but to bash people that do eat meat to make yourself feel better about the diet that you chose.

Your post is so beautiful that I could cry.

emotion_brofist

emotion_brofist

[Phallic Wonderland]

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

So now you are going on some kind of socio-cultural rant? Nice, but red herrings don't sit on my palate well.

I mean seriously, I don't know why you even took the position you did. Arguing that humans are so powerful as to avoid decay and aging? Really? More and more you are starting to drift into my mental 'Troll' column. You will, if you are not careful, find yourself with Pockybot, Demon of the X Shadow, and Suicidesoldier as bedfellows.

[Bored]

That you failed to grasp my original point does not make it a red herring.

I never once argued that they could avoid decay or aging. I even explained it to you after you expressed confusion the first time. I said that human society has longevity, which places it outside of the rest of the organisms on the planet. That includes the food cycle. We have manipulated it to our own advantage. Our largest enemies are humans themselves, bacteria, viruses, and the Earth itself. Everything else is small potatoes. We are rather unique.

If that's your 'original point', then you didn't even get your own argument. The topic of discussion was human's place on the biological process referred to as the circle of life. Need I cite for you your own words and the comment which prefaced it that in no way mentions society at all?

The only possible thing I can see here to explain it is that you don't know what biology is, as you seem to confuse the circle of life (a biological concept) with social standing (a sociological concept).

You also forgot mold. ;P

[Tired]

The topic of discussion was whatever my point of contention with Mei's argument I took, before you hopped in.

Except you're wrong. My biological knowledge, while definitely rudimentary, is not weak. Humans affect biology. We also affect ecology, which is what you're seeking to describe, not biology. The circle of life is influenced by the members. Humans, by manipulating and controlling the circle largely remove themselves from it.

Exactly my point; the argument she made concerned absotively-positlutely NO sociological concepts or notions. Neither did your original response to that, nor did your comment to me. You have, as I noted, gone down an entirely irrelevant trail because you did not know that humans decay, all-mighty power and influence notwithstanding.

Its just pure lol-ocaust to me that you continue to defend this point.

[Bored]

It's an erroneous simplification of ecology into a children's movie tagline. What comes out, goes back in. That is the premise of the circle of life. When they are unbalanced, there is no circle. Ergo, you are wrong. So quit it.

[Annoyed]

The Holocaust isn't amusing. I think the internet has changed you for the worse, Riviera.

In a way you are right. We remove ourselves from the environment of "kill-or-be-killed" that other, less intelligent animals live in. However, we still do end up being consumed at death, so I guess we are more or less at the end of the repeating cycle and are not apart of the middle of the cycle at all, unless aboriginal.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Phallic Wonderland

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Phallic Wonderland

You are always so full of it, aren't you... Listen, if we were meant to consume ONLY veggies, fruits and grasses, our digestive system would be drastically different and our brains a LOT smaller. Our brains were able to increase in size BECAUSE we started eating meat. If we were meant to evolve into vegetarians, our stomachs and intestines would have dramatically different bacteria.

We have incisors for a reason, as well. we were given omnivorous teeth because we need both plants -and- animals as food. You could always argue "we don't need it NOW whine whine" but I will let you keep your bullshit while I indulge at the Olive Garden today.

If humans were meant to go into space they wouldn't have digestive tracts that depend on gravitational forces, or bones that lose density over time, or skin that can't resist cosmic rays and extreme temperatures. I'm no tardigrade.

Behold: Technology! Maybe once we manage to go all Deep Space Nine our bodies will adapt to be more resilient. Or our technology will be good enough where it won't be necessary.

Technology is what gave us the ability to kill larger things effectively, why not use it to travel space more effectively?

Oh, so technology renders our evolutionary design irrelevant to our current abilities?

[Phallic Wonderland]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Phallic Wonderland

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Phallic Wonderland

You are always so full of it, aren't you... Listen, if we were meant to consume ONLY veggies, fruits and grasses, our digestive system would be drastically different and our brains a LOT smaller. Our brains were able to increase in size BECAUSE we started eating meat. If we were meant to evolve into vegetarians, our stomachs and intestines would have dramatically different bacteria.

We have incisors for a reason, as well. we were given omnivorous teeth because we need both plants -and- animals as food. You could always argue "we don't need it NOW whine whine" but I will let you keep your bullshit while I indulge at the Olive Garden today.

If humans were meant to go into space they wouldn't have digestive tracts that depend on gravitational forces, or bones that lose density over time, or skin that can't resist cosmic rays and extreme temperatures. I'm no tardigrade.

Behold: Technology! Maybe once we manage to go all Deep Space Nine our bodies will adapt to be more resilient. Or our technology will be good enough where it won't be necessary.

Technology is what gave us the ability to kill larger things effectively, why not use it to travel space more effectively?

Oh, so technology renders our evolutionary design irrelevant to our current abilities?

We've been stagnant as a species for quite some time, actually. I get where you're going, no, we don't technically NEED to eat meat (well, some people do) as most of us could probably get along without it. However, I was speaking in the larger scheme of things, as to HOW we got where we are today. Innovation is our great ability. The problem lies in that the more we rely on our creature comforts, the less we need to continue adapting and evolving. We may be getting more tolerant to dairy products, being born without wisdom teeth and adapting smaller, more efficient brains, but I feel that we stagnate ourselves because we save so many lives that would not have been able to survive if we did not have this technology and so genetic faults are more frequently passed on. I'm not a fan of eugenics, and I don't want to go there, I was just mentioning a possible cause of this stagnation.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Phallic Wonderland

We've been stagnant as a species for quite some time, actually.

Not true. Most of the changes in our species' genome have occurred in the last 10,000 years.

Quote:

I feel that we stagnate ourselves because we save so many lives that would not have been able to survive if we did not have this technology and so genetic faults are more frequently passed on.

If evolution is gene-based, and the point of genetic evolution is to store information about the best biological designs for survival in the current environment, then cultural and technological evolution are both superior forms, because not only can they change in less than a generation, they allow us to escape the constraints of biology. You feel that we stagnate ourselves? Changes in our species are exponentially fast, and the difference between 20, 30, 50, and 100 years past are staggering. Where do people get this stagnation s**t? Do you think the world is divided up neatly into separate, non-interacting compartments? 100 years ago, Earth was relatively stable. Today, the climate and ecosystem are destabilizing, and there's huge islands made of plastic in the Pacific ocean. Stagnant? Where have you been?

Speaking of climate and the ecosystem, eating large quantities of meat with a population of 7 billion is one of the things that is endangering both.

[Phallic Wonderland]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Phallic Wonderland

We've been stagnant as a species for quite some time, actually.

Not true. Most of the changes in our species' genome have occurred in the last 10,000 years.

Quote:

I feel that we stagnate ourselves because we save so many lives that would not have been able to survive if we did not have this technology and so genetic faults are more frequently passed on.

If evolution is gene-based, and the point of genetic evolution is to store information about the best biological designs for survival in the current environment, then cultural and technological evolution are both superior forms, because not only can they change in less than a generation, they allow us to escape the constraints of biology. You feel that we stagnate ourselves? Changes in our species are exponentially fast, and the difference between 20, 30, 50, and 100 years past are staggering. Where do people get this stagnation s**t? Do you think the world is divided up neatly into separate, non-interacting compartments? 100 years ago, Earth was relatively stable. Today, the climate and ecosystem are destabilizing, and there's huge islands made of plastic in the Pacific ocean. Stagnant? Where have you been?

Speaking of climate and the ecosystem, eating large quantities of meat with a population of 7 billion is one of the things that is endangering both.

And over-farming is equally as damaging. We do not do things by hand, and animals are still killed in the process of harvesting all sorts of produce.

Proof that eating meat is so damaging, please?

[HMS Thunder Child]

Phallic Wonderland

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

If that's your 'original point', then you didn't even get your own argument. The topic of discussion was human's place on the biological process referred to as the circle of life. Need I cite for you your own words and the comment which prefaced it that in no way mentions society at all?

The only possible thing I can see here to explain it is that you don't know what biology is, as you seem to confuse the circle of life (a biological concept) with social standing (a sociological concept).

You also forgot mold. ;P

[Tired]

The topic of discussion was whatever my point of contention with Mei's argument I took, before you hopped in.

Except you're wrong. My biological knowledge, while definitely rudimentary, is not weak. Humans affect biology. We also affect ecology, which is what you're seeking to describe, not biology. The circle of life is influenced by the members. Humans, by manipulating and controlling the circle largely remove themselves from it.

Exactly my point; the argument she made concerned absotively-positlutely NO sociological concepts or notions. Neither did your original response to that, nor did your comment to me. You have, as I noted, gone down an entirely irrelevant trail because you did not know that humans decay, all-mighty power and influence notwithstanding.

Its just pure lol-ocaust to me that you continue to defend this point.

[Bored]

It's an erroneous simplification of ecology into a children's movie tagline. What comes out, goes back in. That is the premise of the circle of life. When they are unbalanced, there is no circle. Ergo, you are wrong. So quit it.

[Annoyed]

The Holocaust isn't amusing. I think the internet has changed you for the worse, Riviera.

In a way you are right. We remove ourselves from the environment of "kill-or-be-killed" that other, less intelligent animals live in. However, we still do end up being consumed at death, so I guess we are more or less at the end of the repeating cycle and are not apart of the middle of the cycle at all, unless aboriginal.

[Earnest]

Essentially.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

Phallic Wonderland

We've been stagnant as a species for quite some time, actually.

Not true. Most of the changes in our species' genome have occurred in the last 10,000 years.

Quote:

I feel that we stagnate ourselves because we save so many lives that would not have been able to survive if we did not have this technology and so genetic faults are more frequently passed on.

If evolution is gene-based, and the point of genetic evolution is to store information about the best biological designs for survival in the current environment, then cultural and technological evolution are both superior forms, because not only can they change in less than a generation, they allow us to escape the constraints of biology. You feel that we stagnate ourselves? Changes in our species are exponentially fast, and the difference between 20, 30, 50, and 100 years past are staggering. Where do people get this stagnation s**t? Do you think the world is divided up neatly into separate, non-interacting compartments? 100 years ago, Earth was relatively stable. Today, the climate and ecosystem are destabilizing, and there's huge islands made of plastic in the Pacific ocean. Stagnant? Where have you been?

Speaking of climate and the ecosystem, eating large quantities of meat with a population of 7 billion is one of the things that is endangering both.

Wut... genes aren't changing with our level of technology.

You realize that right?

[x-Garethp-x]

dolly milk

So then somebody ended up eating the meat raw and got sick, so they figured that cooking it would cause them to be able to eat it without getting sick anymore?

Also bone marrow sounds really ******** disgusting. gonk

Actually, if I remember correctly, we can eat raw meat. The problem being that the longer the raw meat stands, the more it becomes infected. We cook our meat because we store it for a while first. However, if we were to kill a sheep and literally eat it right there and then, we shouldn't get sick. Why? Because the living body of the animal does it's best to try and keep bad bacteria out, so it's relatively clean. But once it's dead, it can't do that, so it slowly becomes less clean. We cook it to counteract that

Cooking food was merely our way of making food still edible after it's been kept for a few days (or more, since refrigeration)

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Phallic Wonderland

And over-farming is equally as damaging. We do not do things by hand, and animals are still killed in the process of harvesting all sorts of produce.

Proof that eating meat is so damaging, please?

No it's not, because the way animals are raised today requires not only land for the meat, but also additional land for the feed. The animals are pumped full of antibiotics and increase the population of bacteria that are resistant. Plants sequester CO2 while animals produce methane, and are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases on the planet. The manure produced by factory-farmed meat is largely unusable as fertilizer and contains antibiotics and possibly heavy metals.

Finally, I can grow enough food in a suburban lawn to satisfy my plant-based diet almost year round. The majority of the population in the Western world does not live anywhere that allows livestock animals in any number.

Suicidesoldier#1

Wut... genes aren't changing with our level of technology.

You realize that right?

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that genes exist to store information, as in to produce and store information about biological structures (which, on many different levels, determine behavior) and, through interaction with other genes and the environment, change over time? Which is what culture and scientific knowledge do? It's not that genes change because of culture and technology, which they do, because both of those have a component in the environment the genes interact with as well as sexual selection, but that culture and knowledge provide the same function as genes.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

HMS Thunder Child

Riviera de la Mancha

So now you are going on some kind of socio-cultural rant? Nice, but red herrings don't sit on my palate well.

I mean seriously, I don't know why you even took the position you did. Arguing that humans are so powerful as to avoid decay and aging? Really? More and more you are starting to drift into my mental 'Troll' column. You will, if you are not careful, find yourself with Pockybot, Demon of the X Shadow, and Suicidesoldier as bedfellows.

[Bored]

That you failed to grasp my original point does not make it a red herring.

I never once argued that they could avoid decay or aging. I even explained it to you after you expressed confusion the first time. I said that human society has longevity, which places it outside of the rest of the organisms on the planet. That includes the food cycle. We have manipulated it to our own advantage. Our largest enemies are humans themselves, bacteria, viruses, and the Earth itself. Everything else is small potatoes. We are rather unique.

If that's your 'original point', then you didn't even get your own argument. The topic of discussion was human's place on the biological process referred to as the circle of life. Need I cite for you your own words and the comment which prefaced it that in no way mentions society at all?

The only possible thing I can see here to explain it is that you don't know what biology is, as you seem to confuse the circle of life (a biological concept) with social standing (a sociological concept).

You also forgot mold. ;P

[Tired]

The topic of discussion was whatever my point of contention with Mei's argument I took, before you hopped in.

Except you're wrong. My biological knowledge, while definitely rudimentary, is not weak. Humans affect biology. We also affect ecology, which is what you're seeking to describe, not biology. The circle of life is influenced by the members. Humans, by manipulating and controlling the circle largely remove themselves from it.

Exactly my point; the argument she made concerned absotively-positlutely NO sociological concepts or notions. Neither did your original response to that, nor did your comment to me. You have, as I noted, gone down an entirely irrelevant trail because you did not know that humans decay, all-mighty power and influence notwithstanding.

Its just pure lol-ocaust to me that you continue to defend this point.

[Bored]

It's an erroneous simplification of ecology into a children's movie tagline. What comes out, goes back in. That is the premise of the circle of life. When they are unbalanced, there is no circle. Ergo, you are wrong. So quit it.

[Annoyed]

The Holocaust isn't amusing. I think the internet has changed you for the worse, Riviera.

You have not even demonstrated that they are unbalanced - that's the central issue here. Your whole argument is that humans are in possession of some kind of divine power to overcome natural decay, which does the balance function.

lol-ocaust =/= holocaust. My spidey-sense of you is that you were not the sharpest spoon in the knife drawer even before teh internetz.

[GunsmithKitten]

dolly milk

But then it's just cheap and proves you to be a coward who is practically admitting that you are weaker than them.

There's one big fundamental difference in how we think.

In actual life or death combat, what is "cheap" or "cowardly" doesn't mean s**t.

I don't care if I'm weaker than them, or seen as weaker, or seen as a coward. What I care about is "who's still standing?"

And you know what? I'm in good company as nature goes.

Look at wolf or hyena packs; do they always hunt larger animals alone? NO. They "cheat" by attacking in multiple numbers (cowards!), they pick off slower members of the prey herd (instead of bravely challenging the bigger alphas!) and they aren't kind with how they kill them either (being torn apart is not a painless way to go).

[InnerUtopia]

I think we should all just eat how we want to eat and stop harassing others about their food choices. It is literally none of your business what other people eat, as it does no harm to you whatsoever.

As for me, I'm an omnivore, all the way. I've tried to go vegetarian on several occasions, but even while eating protein-rich alternatives and taking supplements, I just didn't feel as energetic or healthy as I do when I eat meat. I dunno, maybe it's an imbalance in my body or something like that.

Also, I just adore the taste of chicken heart I'd be willing to drop red meat and pork from my diet any day, but you can't separate me from poultry sweatdrop