|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Meat and fruit are high quality foods that are not difficult to assimilate.
Animals that specialize in these types of food tend to have a short
digestive tract, with a very short large intestine. Plant foods can be
nutritious, but take longer to absorb. Therefore, animals that specialize
in plant eating tend to have long and elaborate digestive tracts. Humans
are clearly intermediate here. We have a long large intestine (more common
in plant eaters), but we lack the elaborations that would allow us to
digest and assimilate nutrients from high fiber plant foods (such as
grass or leaves). So, again, the human digestive tract can be used to argue
that we are omnivorous. |
That excerpt from your article is completely illogical ... fruits are plants. Why does the author jump to the conclusion that we're "omnivores" rather than "frugivores"? The fact is, we can choose, and most educated people don't agree with that guy. I know I've posted links to this info before, but here's another:
http://www.dietitians.ca/news/vegetarian_position.html
Apart from all that, even your supposed anatomy expert doesn't claim it's impossible to be a healthy vegetarian or vegan. And that's exactly what you would need to prove to justify the existence of slaughterhouses. Even if the rest of us are dropping dead of protein deficiency left, right and center, the existence of even one healthy vegan disproves your ideology 100 percent. And there are plenty out there. Go look for them.
Last edited by red dog on Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hank Scorpio
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
That excerpt from your article is completely illogical ... fruits are plants. |
In an absolute, literal sense, yes. Fruit does indeed come from plants. Strangely enough, we normal people tend to classify fruits and vegetables differently, that's why they're lumped into seperate areas of the produce department.
| Quote: |
So why does the author jump to the conclusion that we're "omnivores" rather than "frugivores"? The fact is, we can choose, and most educated people don't agree with that guy. I know I've posted links to this info before, but here's another: |
There's no "jumping" to any conclusion. It's absolute fact that we're omnivores because we eat meat and vegetables. That's the reason we have these sharp things called canine teeth and incisors; for tearing meat. Were we strictly vegetarian we'd have one big mouth full of molars for grinding fibrous matter.
Every relative of homo sapiens to one degree or another eats meat. Our digestive system isn't designed to pull a lot of nutrients from vegetable matter, which means we need to get a lot of our nutrient from easily digestible, high energy foods. I'll guarantee you that for our ancestors that meant whatever animal you could kill or scavenge, and whatever fruit you could pull off a tree. When you're struggling to eat every day you're not too picky about whether your food has a soul or not.
Now I know you like the cuddly little animals and everything, but trying to claim that eating meat is "unnatural" is pure idiocy. We've been doing it since our ancestors came down from the trees. Hell, we probably killed and ate each other when it came down to it. Something tells me that that level of lust for meat is inherent in the species and not just a whim.
Stick with your all veggie diet by all means, but recognize that you my friend are the aberration, and not everyone else.
| Quote: |
| Even if the rest of us are dropping dead of protein deficiency left, right and center, the existence of even one healthy vegan disproves your ideology 100 percent. And there are plenty out there. Go look for them. |
You know, usually I'm subtle like a jackhammer, but let me try to make this clear to you:
I don't like you.
I don't like vegans, macrame artists, granola eaters, or other nimrods.
I'd sooner search out syphillus than search out a "healthy" vegan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like you either, but I don't run around making sweeping statements suggesting it's impossible for pot-smoking Internet trolls to be healthy. I wish I had time to refute all the misinformation around here, but sadly I don't. Here's another article that may interest some people:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/sandy_china_study.htm
(BTW, I don't think Spurlock ever was a vegan before he did his experiment ... his girlfriend may have been, though, and hopefully he joined her during his recovery period at least.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In addition, you're the one who is basing your entire argument on some people's ideas about what sort of diet is "natural" for humans. I pointed out that not everyone interprets the anatomical evidence the same way; many experts in fact think we're better equipped to digest a fruit-based diet. But the real proof comes from studies of human populations that show what kind of food humans tend to thrive on. The China Study is so far the best-designed, most comprehensive and complete study of its kind, and the data from that study indicate that humans are better off without animal products. You're still living in a bygone era. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| In addition, you're the one who is basing your entire argument on some people's ideas about what sort of diet is "natural" for humans. I pointed out that not everyone interprets the anatomical evidence the same way; many experts in fact think we're better equipped to digest a fruit-based diet. But the real proof comes from studies of human populations that show what kind of food humans tend to thrive on. The China Study is so far the best-designed, most comprehensive and complete study of its kind, and the data from that study indicate that humans are better off without animal products. You're still living in a bygone era. |
Please explain which "bygone era" you are talking about. I believe you quoted some "scientist" about how humans are not able to rip flesh with their hands or teeth. The implication was that we could not eat meat without using tools of some kind, I guess. So if you think we should base our diets on what we could or could not eat without the use of tools, who exactly is living in a "bygone era?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I meant that Hank's beliefs about nutrition reflected outdated thinking, and that the China Study dispelled a lot of old myths about the supposed need for animal protein in the human diet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Am I on crack, or did that article state that she ate both a 2000 calorie and 1400 calorie/day diet? I'm confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
