| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
Geoff wrote:
Perhaps you could tell us why the video would be an enjoyable *hobby* for anyone? Better yet, perhaps you could tell us why you feel it's OK to livebait a small fish, to catch a bigger fish. What part of a fish being ripped apart alive, is *understanding nature*? I put it to you that your ilk are clueless about life in general, let alone nature! Evidently you know nothing of nature, as it is nature for one fish to feed on another (rip another apart), whether it's on a fisherman's hook, or just swimming free, it's the same death to the small fish,, think about all the small bait fish the fishermen save by just removing one large predator, thousands of them,, is one large fish worth more than many small ones ? Did they show anything like the suffering of tuna or the use of livebaits? NO, because it's completely unacceptable, and unnecessary. Killing a fish for food, and killing a fish for fun are worlds apart! Why is it. The more a fish suffers, the more your ilk enjoy it? Those tuna are fed on daily by Mako sharks, is it alright for the mako to kill tuna ? How is that different from us killing tuna for food? By the way, in every study done "fish" do not have the ability to feel pain like mammals . If a mammal has a hook in it's mouth or nose it will not pull against that hook due to it causing an increase in pain, a fish pulls hard against the hook. A fish lacks the part of the brain that has the pain receptors. (this has been proved) Sharks have been known to get bitten in a feeding frenzy , bitten to the point of dying shortly after, yet they show no signs of distress, they feed right along with the unharmed sharks, until they die. Of course we would not want any actual "FACTS" to get in the way of your beliefs :-) Man is "part" of the food chain, we have risen to the top of it, if you want to put man as an animal, why not accept him as the predator he is, you accept every "other" predator as being just nature that falls below him ? Your not trying to get chimps to stop hunting monkeys, ripping them apart and eating them raw. Nor trying to stop lions from killing Zebras, or dolphins from feeding on toad fish, or wild mink from killing everything they come in contact with, whether they are hungry or not The reason is a few, very few, humans have lost the predator nature, due to only one reason, the supply of alternate foods, available from the grocery store. This unlimited food supply has caused a few humans to loose their survival instinks, they have lost their very "nature". Now these few want to "convert" the whole human race, so none could survive without the corner grocery store. Since this cult has started less than a 100 years ago, it will take many, many, many centuries to "breed" the predator genes out of the human race, if they ever can. Science has stated that humans evolved to what they are today because of them becoming hunters, and feeding on high protein "MEAT", which caused the brains to grow at a faster rate, we would be still swinging from the trees if we had remained vegetarians, some of "your" off spring will return to swinging from the trees, if meat is removed from their diets for a couple hundred generations . Of course you will try to shoot down all these "facts", because cultist never let "facts" get in the way of their beliefs. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
Geoff wrote: .. Did they show anything like the suffering of tuna or the use of livebaits? NO, because it's completely unacceptable, and unnecessary. Killing a fish for food, and killing a fish for fun are worlds apart! Why is it. The more a fish suffers, the more your ilk enjoy it? Those tuna are fed on daily by Mako sharks, is it alright for the mako to kill tuna ? How is that different from us killing tuna for food? By the way, in every study done "fish" do not have the ability to feel pain like mammals . If a mammal has a hook in it's mouth or nose it will not pull against that hook due to it causing an increase in pain, a fish pulls hard against the hook. A fish lacks the part of the brain that has the pain receptors. (this has been proved) Sharks have been known to get bitten in a feeding frenzy , bitten to the point of dying shortly after, yet they show no signs of distress, they feed right along with the unharmed sharks, until they die. Of course we would not want any actual "FACTS" to get in the way of your beliefs :-) The FACTS are on our side. 'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999). .........' http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf Man is "part" of the food chain, we have risen to the top of it, if you want to put man as an animal, why not accept him as the predator he is, NOT. "When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores." - Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology . you accept every "other" predator as being just nature that falls below him ? Your not trying to get chimps to stop hunting monkeys, ripping them apart and eating them raw. Nor trying to stop lions from killing Zebras, or dolphins from feeding on toad fish, or wild mink from killing everything they come in contact with, whether they are hungry or not The reason is a few, very few, humans have lost the predator nature, due to only one reason, the supply of alternate foods, available from the grocery store. This unlimited food supply has caused a few humans to loose their survival instinks, they have lost their very "nature". Now these few want to "convert" the whole human race, so none could survive without the corner grocery store. Since this cult has started less than a 100 years ago, it will take many, many, many centuries to "breed" the predator genes out of the human race, if they ever can. 'Medical News Today Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK) Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals, Not Predators by Neil Schoenherr Washington University in St. Louis You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals, not the predators modern mythology would have us believe, says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts & Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu," during the American Association for the Advancement of the Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18. Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier, University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University. In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles. Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues. He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. "Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator," says Sussman. Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct. The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case." Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record. "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?" It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says. "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues. The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs." Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well. Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman. "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011 Science has stated that humans evolved to what they are today because of them becoming hunters, and feeding on high protein "MEAT", which caused the brains to grow at a faster rate, we would be still swinging from the trees if we had remained vegetarians, some of "your" off spring will return to swinging from the trees, if meat is removed from their diets for a couple hundred generations . 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on whom you believe." Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things), ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads. They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago, and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'" ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm Of course you will try to shoot down all these "facts", because cultist never let "facts" get in the way of their beliefs. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
The FACTS are on our side. Total bull S. that I snipped, you quoted every source there is on your side,, a hand full of nut cases. less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the scientist that work in this field, 99.5 % of all the other PHD's totally disagree. Of course everyone of these you quoted are either members of PETA, or some other cult group,, they came to their conclusions, "then", they looked for evidence to match their conclusions, throwing out anything they found that did not agree. None are respected in their fields, by their piers I bet they totally freaked when they found out (just a few years ago) Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,, some say 50,000 years There is no "recorded history" when they were not both, so for at least the past 8,000 years they have been killers, and meat eaters, do your experts try to explain this away ? I don't think they can even if they tried to toss out all the "written" evidence. The theory of evolution would say any humans that were not killers, would be killed out by those that were What you have posted is propaganda, came right off a PETA site I would bet. I don't have the time to waste to check these nuts out right now, but I have saved the post,, maybe when I have "nothing" to do, we shall see what a good web search on them will turn up, like what radical groups they belong to, or which of these groups are giving them grants to prove what they "want" proved. Anyone can get a PhD , even psychopaths , and many PHDs have been caught lately falsifying their research, to get grants Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat ? :-) -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
Rodney Long wrote: The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,, some say 50,000 years Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates, we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have eliminated the need to eat meat for survival. Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat ? :-) That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although it wasn't necessarily healthy. Now that we can ship vegetables in from warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to eating meat. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: The FACTS are on our side. Total bull S. that I snipped, Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours. Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270. 'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet. In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81). In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967, Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82). Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete, or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood." (p.87). From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian', while others are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters. Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95). The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle (p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests. Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105), and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed" study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107) In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108) The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135, that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs, insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)" He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)." Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below in his evidence. # the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases # the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits # rarity of pertinent field observations # the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much more common) Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research." ...' http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours. Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270. 'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet. All this changed with Jane Goodal, who now has many documented, on "film" cases where chimps kill and eat meat, it took years before the chimps allowed her close enough to see this happen. This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
wrote: Rodney Long wrote: The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,, some say 50,000 years Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates, we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have eliminated the need to eat meat for survival. The high protein of meat is what made our brains develop to what they are today, 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy. Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature, previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose, body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our species history and origins. With advances in dating methods, including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously, anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions" (The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that they will persist in making them. Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the environmental factors our species have been exposed to selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet. The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is also noted. ... Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not, and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans. ... What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav T. Oftedal who says: "Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk, we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later, during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating breast milk. .... According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8% lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%) of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on human infants. Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive lower protein requirements of humans. [see link] Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans and other mammals must have system wide implications for our metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double (12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which we experience in the domestic state. The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive' peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage. However, what we do know of the consequences is that it reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products, is pathogenic. Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists. This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in the final sections of the article. .....' http://tinyurl.com/dahps 'BBC - Test The Nation - Results [IQ] Studio groups ------------------------------- Vegetarians 113 Public Schools 111 Butchers 105 Celebrities 105 Estate Agents 104 Footballers' Wives 101 UK Average - 109.25 http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i...ts/index.shtml 'VEGGIE CHAMPIONS!!! The Vegetarians win BBC's Test the Nation IQ battle. Vegetarianism. the intelligent choice! We are THRILLED to announce that the 40-strong team of vegetarians came out top as the studio team winners of Saturday night's hugely popular BBC National IQ contest. And, proving that vegetarianism is clearly an intelligent choice, the individual contestant with the highest overall IQ was a vegetarian too! Wearing green t-shirts, the vegetarians competed against six other teams including butchers, estate agents, public school pupils, state school pupils, footballers' wives and celebrities. The veggie team was made up of vegetarians and Society members from around the UK, including five members of VegSoc staff. As the results were announced, the veggie team was consistently in the top three but not the obvious victors. However, when the final scores were tallied, including IQ variations for age differences, we were delighted to be declared the winners - with an overall IQ of 113. Interestingly, The Butchers came joint fourth! For a full break-down of the scores please go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i.../results.shtml Top-scoring contestant Marie Bidmead, 68, a mother-of-five from Churcham, Gloucester said: "It was great fun. The veggie team was so united and jolly, regardless of winning. We all went along for a bit of fun and were up against these highflying students and stars. I was in absolute shock when I got the top score! I failed my 11-plus and I've never considered myself to be a brain-box. I think it shows that we veggies are good 'thinkers' - we think about what we eat with intelligence for a start!" September 2006 http://www.vegsoc.org/news/2006/testnation.html if we had never eating meat, we would still be swinging from the trees. 'We' left the trees about seven million years ago, without meat. Now chimps have started eating meat, in a couple hundred thousand years, they will come out of the trees See other post. Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat ? :-) That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although it wasn't necessarily healthy. The top medical people are now saying some "meat" is necessary in "many" people's diets, true some can live without it, but the majority need "some" for proper health . 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three: * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs. * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food. * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit. http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html "China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first published in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more than 50 scientific publications." "Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. China Study II was directed by the three collaborators in the first study and by Dr. Winharn Pan" .. "Both surveys afford an opportunity to investigate the effect of dietary change from the typical plant-based diet of rural China to a Western-style diet that includes more animal-based foods, as consumed in urban China and in Taiwan. "Even small increases in the consumption of animal-based foods was associated with increased disease risk," Campbell told a symposium at the epidemiology congress, pointing to several statistically significant correlations from the China studies:" .....' http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html There are finally some real research that has been done, since vegetarian diets, by enough people to study, have only been done for half of the last century 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc. This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association: 'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.' ....' http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html Now that we can ship vegetables in from warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to eating meat. For one reason, I like it 'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize one species from another. Without it, we may end up with just a bland, general meaty taste. ' http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S. and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders. Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals' ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated by addictive drugs such as cocaine. ... According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said. ... Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective "in-health" model of addiction. " ...' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm "The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain," Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine." ...' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours. Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270. 'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet. All this changed with Jane Goodal, who now has many documented, on "film" cases where chimps kill and eat meat, it took years before the chimps allowed her close enough to see this happen. This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts. Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high. '..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about 16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest. ... The dominating vegetation in this park include the open deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee, Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. ....' http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
Rodney Long wrote:
The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. 'The way chimpanzees in West Africa use stone tools to crack open nuts for food and pass on the trick to their offspring has been revealed in an intriguing study published in the journal Science. ... During their expedition to the Tai Forest last year, the scientists recovered 479 stone pieces, chips of granite, laterite, feldspar and quartz broken from the hammers. Another lead researcher, Dr Julio Mercader, also from George Washington University, said the study could help us better understand the behaviour of human-like species from several million years ago. "We do not say that [old hominid] sites look like our chimp sites. What we do say is some of the flakes we found in some of the pieces of shatter resemble those found at some of the technologically simplest [hominid] sites in East Africa," he said. "The implication is that older hominids practised nut-cracking like the chimps." ...' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2006309.stm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
pearl wrote:
"We do not say that [old hominid] sites look like our chimp sites. What we do say is some of the flakes we found in some of the pieces of shatter resemble those found at some of the technologically simplest [hominid] sites in East Africa," he said. "The implication is that older hominids practised nut-cracking like the chimps." Could be true,, but "Modern" man was a hunter, and killer from the get go, so was Neanderthal Man, they both ate meat and veggies,, so do I :-) -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts. Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high. '..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about 16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest. .. The dominating vegetation in this park include the open deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee, Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. I was not going to even mention Baboons, meat eating is an accepted practice for them. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: "We do not say that [old hominid] sites look like our chimp sites. What we do say is some of the flakes we found in some of the pieces of shatter resemble those found at some of the technologically simplest [hominid] sites in East Africa," he said. "The implication is that older hominids practised nut-cracking like the chimps." Could be true,, but "Modern" man was a hunter, and killer from the get go, How? 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on whom you believe." Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things), ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads. They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago, and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'" ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm so was Neanderthal Man, they both ate meat and veggies,, "COLUMBUS, Ohio - The bands of ancient Neanderthals that struggled throughout Europe during the last Ice Age faced challenges no tougher than those confronted by the modern Inuit, or Eskimos. ... [..] the short lifespans of Neanderthals and evidence of arthritis in their skeletons suggests that their lives were extremely difficult. ... Guatelli-Steinberg has spent the last decade investigating tiny defects -- linear enamel hypoplasia -- in tooth enamel from primates, modern and early humans. These defects serve as markers of periods during early childhood when food was scarce and nutrition was low. These tiny horizontal lines and grooves in tooth enamel form when the body faces either a systemic illness or a severely deficient diet. In essence, they are reminders of times when the body's normal process of forming tooth enamel during childhood simply shut down for a period of time. "Looking at these fossilized teeth, you can easily see these defects that showed Neanderthals periodically struggled nutritionally," she said. "But I wanted to know if that struggle was any harder than that of more modern humans." ... "The evidence shows that Neanderthals were no worse off than the Inuit who lived in equally harsh environmental conditions," she said, despite the fact that the Inuit use more advanced technology. "It is somewhat startling that Neanderthals weren't suffering as badly as people had thought, relative to a modern human group (the Inuits)." ...' http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm The Neanderthals ..... ?? The Inuit don't fare very well either.. 'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974 Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1 1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916 'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury, suicide and diabetes.' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/index_e.html 'Combined, circulatory diseases (23% of all deaths) and injury (22%) account for nearly half of all mortality among First Nations. In Canada, circulatory diseases account for 37% of all deaths, followed by cancer (27%). ... For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease was the most common cause of death. ...' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pub..._profil_e.html 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials. ' http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by physiologic mechanisms. The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 ...' http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html so do I :-) 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl): 1153S-1161S. A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake- biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts. Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high. '..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about 16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest. .. The dominating vegetation in this park include the open deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee, Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. I was not going to even mention Baboons, meat eating is an accepted practice for them. Their habitat has been described as flat, semi-arid savannah with occasional trees or woodland, with highly seasonal rainfall. Not a place where succulent fruits could be expected to be abundant. So, yet, .. "their diet emphasizes roots, tubers, grass seeds and fruits." http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/eight.html As you mention baboons.... 'No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture By NATALIE ANGIER Published: April 13, 2004 Sometimes it takes the great Dustbuster of fate to clear the room of bullies and bad habits. Freak cyclones helped destroy Kublai Khan's brutal Mongolian empire, for example, while the Black Death of the 14th century capsized the medieval theocracy and gave the Renaissance a chance to shine. Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate. In a study appearing today in the journal PloS Biology (online at www.plosbiology.org), researchers describe the drastic temperamental and tonal shift that occurred in a troop of 62 baboons when its most belligerent members vanished from the scene. The victims were all dominant adult males that had been strong and snarly enough to fight with a neighboring baboon troop over the spoils at a tourist lodge garbage dump, and were exposed there to meat tainted with bovine tuberculosis, which soon killed them. Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit. Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe. "We don't yet understand the mechanism of transmittal," said Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, "but the jerky new guys are obviously learning, `We don't do things like that around here.'" Dr. Sapolsky wrote the report with his colleague and wife, Dr. Lisa J. Share. Dr. Sapolsky, who is renowned for his study of the physiology of stress, said that the Forest Troop baboons probably felt as good as they acted. Hormone samples from the monkeys showed far less evidence of stress in even the lowest-ranking individuals, when contrasted with baboons living in more rancorous societies. The researchers were able to compare the behavior and physiology of the contemporary Forest Troop primates to two control groups: a similar-size baboon congregation living nearby, called the Talek Troop, and the Forest Troop itself from 1979 through 1982, the era that might be called Before Alpha Die-off, or B.A.D. "It's a really fine, thorough piece of work, with the sort of methodology and lucky data sets that you can only get from doing long-term field research," said Dr. Duane Quiatt, a primatologist at the University of Colorado at Denver and a co-author with Vernon Reynolds of the 1993 book "Primate Behaviour: Information, Social Knowledge and the Evolution of Culture." The new work vividly demonstrates that, Putumayo records notwithstanding, humans hold no patent on multiculturalism. As a growing body of research indicates, many social animals learn from one another and cultivate regional variants in skills, conventions and fashions. Some chimpanzees crack open their nuts with a stone hammer on a stone anvil; others prefer wood hammers on wood anvils. The chimpanzees of the Tai forest rain-dance; those of the Gombe tickle themselves. Dr. Jane Goodall reported a fad in one chimpanzee group: a young female started wiggling her hands, and before long, every teen chimp was doing likewise. (Page 2 of 2) But in the baboon study, the culture being conveyed is less a specific behavior or skill than a global code of conduct. "You can more accurately describe it as the social ethos of group," said Dr. Andrew Whiten, a professor of evolutionary and developmental psychology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who has studied chimpanzee culture. "It's an attitude that's being transmitted." The report also offers real-world proof of a principle first demonstrated in captive populations of monkeys: that with the right upbringing, diplomacy is infectious. Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal, the director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, has shown that if the normally pugilistic rhesus monkeys are reared with the more conciliatory stumptailed monkeys, the rhesus monkeys learn the value of tolerance, peacemaking and mutual hip-hugging. Dr. de Waal, who wrote an essay to accompany the new baboon study, said in a telephone interview, "The good news for humans is that it looks like peaceful conditions, once established, can be maintained," he said. "And if baboons can do it," he said, "why not us? The bad news is that you might have to first knock out all the most aggressive males to get there." Jerkiness or worse certainly seems to be a job description for ordinary male baboons. The average young male, after wheedling his way into a new troop at around age 7, spends his prime years seeking to fang his way up the hierarchy; and once he's gained some status, he devotes many a leisure hour to whimsical displays of power at scant personal cost. He harasses and attacks females, which weigh half his hundred pounds and lack his thumb-thick canines, or he terrorizes the low-ranking males he knows cannot retaliate. Dr. Barbara Smuts, a primatologist at the University of Michigan who wrote the 1985 book "Sex and Friendship in Baboons," said that the females in the troop she studied received a serious bite from a male annually, maybe losing a strip of flesh or part of an ear in the process. As they age and lose their strength, however, males may calm down and adopt a new approach to group living, affiliating with females so devotedly that they keep their reproductive opportunities going even as their ranking in the male hierarchy plunges. For their part, female baboons, which live up to 25 years - compared with the male's 18 - inherit their rank in the gynocracy from their mothers and so spend less time fighting for dominance. They do, however, readily battle females from outside the fold, for they, not the males, are the keepers of turf and dynasty. The new-fashioned Forest Troop is no United Nations, or even the average frat house. Its citizens remain highly aggressive and argumentative, and the males still obsess over hierarchy. "We're talking about baboons here," said Dr. Sapolsky. What most distinguishes this congregation from others is that the males resist taking out their bad moods on females and underlings. When a dominant male wants to pick a fight, he finds someone his own size and rank. As a result, a greater percentage of male-male conflicts in the Forest Troop occur between closely ranked individuals than is seen in the control populations, where the bullies seek easier pickings. Moreover, Forest Troop males of all ranks spend more time grooming and being groomed, and just generally huddling close to troop mates, than do their counterpart males in the study. Interestingly, the male faces in the Forest Troop may have changed over time, but the relative numbers have not. Ever since the tuberculosis epidemic killed half the adult males, the ratio has remained skewed, with twice as many females as males. Yet the researchers have demonstrated that the troop's sexual complexion alone cannot explain its character. Examining other troops with a similar preponderance of females, the Stanford scientists saw no evidence of the Forest Troop's relative amity. Dr. Sapolsky has no idea how long the good times will last. "I confess I'm rooting for the troop to stay like this forever, but I worry about how vulnerable they may be," he said. "All it would take is two or three jerky adolescent males entering at the same time to tilt the balance and destroy the culture." http://tinyurl.com/3hn4m |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
From: "pearl"
snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"David H. Lipman" wrote in message news:T096h.4761$5P2.4751@trnddc02...
From: "pearl" snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. No. Demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt, that humans are not naturally carnivorous omnivores, omnivorous as you are. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. Going by that 'logic', carnivores should be way smarter than us. You are wrong. I suggest you try to get over it pretty smartish. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. You are in denial. That is the hallmark indication of addiction. ! -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
pearl wrote:
'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on whom you believe." Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things), ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads. They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago, and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'" So this proves that man's "intelligence" did not mature (the making of tools, not just killing and butchering tools) until he started eating meat. This also is a good theory why vegetarians today, are loosing their cognitive thinking ability, they are also actually loosing their "basic survival" instinks .. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm so was Neanderthal Man, they both ate meat and veggies,, "COLUMBUS, Ohio - The bands of ancient Neanderthals that struggled throughout Europe during the last Ice Age faced challenges no tougher than those confronted by the modern Inuit, or Eskimos. .. [..] the short lifespans of Neanderthals and evidence of arthritis in their skeletons suggests that their lives were extremely difficult. .. Guatelli-Steinberg has spent the last decade investigating tiny defects -- linear enamel hypoplasia -- in tooth enamel from primates, modern and early humans. These defects serve as markers of periods during early childhood when food was scarce and nutrition was low. These tiny horizontal lines and grooves in tooth enamel form when the body faces either a systemic illness or a severely deficient diet. In essence, they are reminders of times when the body's normal process of forming tooth enamel during childhood simply shut down for a period of time. "Looking at these fossilized teeth, you can easily see these defects that showed Neanderthals periodically struggled nutritionally," she said. "But I wanted to know if that struggle was any harder than that of more modern humans." .. "The evidence shows that Neanderthals were no worse off than the Inuit who lived in equally harsh environmental conditions," she said, despite the fact that the Inuit use more advanced technology. "It is somewhat startling that Neanderthals weren't suffering as badly as people had thought, relative to a modern human group (the Inuits)." And in both cases their "primary" source of food, if not their total source, was MEAT ! ..' http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm The Neanderthals ..... ?? The Inuit don't fare very well either.. 'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974 Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1 1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916 'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury, suicide and diabetes.' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/index_e.html 'Combined, circulatory diseases (23% of all deaths) and injury (22%) account for nearly half of all mortality among First Nations. In Canada, circulatory diseases account for 37% of all deaths, followed by cancer (27%). .. For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease was the most common cause of death. ..' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pub..._profil_e.html 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials. ' http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by physiologic mechanisms. The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 ..' http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html so do I :-) 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl): 1153S-1161S. A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake- biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. I eat MEAT three times a day, I'm 53 years old, my cholesterol level,,,,,, ""91"" ,,,,, which is lower than most vegetarians. There is a whole lot more involved in cholesterol levels than just eating, or not eating meat Every morning I have two eggs and four strips of bacon, for lunch their will be either ground beef or chicken, for dinner, Steak, pork, chicken or fish , with about 40 venison meals through the year. I also consume at least 1/2 lb of "real" butter a week I have ZERO heart disease, but I still had them do an echo cardiogram at my last physical, it was perfect. My Doctor says that all this is impossible, because of my diet. No, Not really, I eat huge quantities of powdered GARLIC, I eat it on, and in everything. I have for my whole life. I have lost 115 lbs over the last two years, and kept it off, what I stopped eating was bread and sugar or anything made with processed flour, and processed sugar,, those are the two things that will kill you, not meat -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: restore "The implication is that older hominids practised nut-cracking like the chimps." Could be true,, but "Modern" man was a hunter, and killer from the get go, How? end restore 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on whom you believe." Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things), ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads. They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago, and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'" So this proves that man's "intelligence" did not mature (the making of tools, not just killing and butchering tools) until he started eating meat. This also is a good theory why vegetarians today, are loosing their cognitive thinking ability, they are also actually loosing their "basic survival" instinks Evolution happens over very, very long periods of time, not overnight. A history of millions of years of progressive adaptation and learning brought primates to hominids to man to the point where more complex tasks could be devised and carried out, and necessity in a cold climate presented new challenges which drove technological advance - in the making of tools and weapons for *needed* food in the form of meat, warm clothing *needed* to survive in colder conditions, and houses. It was not meat and hunting per se that brought about technological advance, - environmental conditions demanded change in the culture. And, when stuck indoors with others, rather than foraging in loose groups in the big outdoors, you'll understand that there is a lot more time to sit and communicate ... stories and legends are born.. making carvings, paintings, and so on ... there's time to imagine and visualize .. .. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm so was Neanderthal Man, they both ate meat and veggies,, "COLUMBUS, Ohio - The bands of ancient Neanderthals that struggled throughout Europe during the last Ice Age faced challenges no tougher than those confronted by the modern Inuit, or Eskimos. .. [..] the short lifespans of Neanderthals and evidence of arthritis in their skeletons suggests that their lives were extremely difficult. .. Guatelli-Steinberg has spent the last decade investigating tiny defects -- linear enamel hypoplasia -- in tooth enamel from primates, modern and early humans. These defects serve as markers of periods during early childhood when food was scarce and nutrition was low. These tiny horizontal lines and grooves in tooth enamel form when the body faces either a systemic illness or a severely deficient diet. In essence, they are reminders of times when the body's normal process of forming tooth enamel during childhood simply shut down for a period of time. "Looking at these fossilized teeth, you can easily see these defects that showed Neanderthals periodically struggled nutritionally," she said. "But I wanted to know if that struggle was any harder than that of more modern humans." .. "The evidence shows that Neanderthals were no worse off than the Inuit who lived in equally harsh environmental conditions," she said, despite the fact that the Inuit use more advanced technology. "It is somewhat startling that Neanderthals weren't suffering as badly as people had thought, relative to a modern human group (the Inuits)." And in both cases their "primary" source of food, if not their total source, was MEAT ! Yes. ..' http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm The Neanderthals ..... ?? The Inuit don't fare very well either.. 'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974 Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1 1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916 'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury, suicide and diabetes.' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/index_e.html 'Combined, circulatory diseases (23% of all deaths) and injury (22%) account for nearly half of all mortality among First Nations. In Canada, circulatory diseases account for 37% of all deaths, followed by cancer (27%). .. For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease was the most common cause of death. ..' http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pub..._profil_e.html 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials. ' http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by physiologic mechanisms. The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17 High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 ..' http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html so do I :-) 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl): 1153S-1161S. A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake- biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. I eat MEAT three times a day, I'm 53 years old, my cholesterol level,,,,,, ""91"" ,,,,, which is lower than most vegetarians. There is a whole lot more involved in cholesterol levels than just eating, or not eating meat Every morning I have two eggs and four strips of bacon, for lunch their will be either ground beef or chicken, for dinner, Steak, pork, chicken or fish , with about 40 venison meals through the year. I also consume at least 1/2 lb of "real" butter a week I have ZERO heart disease, but I still had them do an echo cardiogram at my last physical, it was perfect. My Doctor says that all this is impossible, because of my diet. No, Not really, I eat huge quantities of powdered GARLIC, I eat it on, and in everything. I have for my whole life. I have lost 115 lbs over the last two years, and kept it off, what I stopped eating was bread and sugar or anything made with processed flour, and processed sugar,, those are the two things that will kill you, not meat Anecdotal evidence. Hmm to that. Sorry. 'Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA. Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192 California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those studied ate meat products 1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate nuts or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts 1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227' |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "pearl" snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. Prime example, they complain about people killing animals, yet they can no longer, see animals killing animals, animals even torturing other animals, just watch a house cat play with a mouse, or killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals in the air for hours, before finally eating them. Animals kill more animals, than humans do. It's the way nature works, and we humans are part of nature. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, I dispatch them as quickly as possible. That deer I kill, I saved another 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your vegetarians can not see these facts any longer, they loose that part or reasoning in their brains,, nothing we meat eaters can do to change their thinking, until they have a couple of hamburgers. They suffer from a chemical imbalance of the brain, and you can't fix it with the antidepressants most of them take. It takes Meat, to solve that problem. How do I know that,, well my daughter went though that phase a few years back, she decided to stop eating meat, within 6 months she was condemning me for eating meat, and hunting, and fishing. One day my wife started slipping a bit of bacon fat into her veggies, a week later, she started finely grinding a little meat into them, in a month she was normal again, and started hunting, and fishing again, and eating meat daily. She now is a normal wife, and mother, with her own son, and feeds him meat. There is hope for these veg'es, They can be turned back to the force, from the dark side, all someone has to do is slip a little hidden meat into their diet, then those neurons that have not been fed, start working again, next thing you know, they will be out with a shotgun, duck hunting :-) -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:07:52 -0600, Rodney Long
wrote: David H. Lipman wrote: From: "pearl" snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. What's your excuse then? |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
David H. Lipman wrote: From: "pearl" snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. Learning-resistant, I see. I won't repeat what I've already posted. Prime example, they complain about people killing animals, yet they can no longer, see animals killing animals, animals even torturing other animals, just watch a house cat play with a mouse, or killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals in the air for hours, before finally eating them. Animals kill more animals, than humans do. It's the way nature works, Funny, I just wrote this on another thread: --------- "Geoff" wrote in message ... OK we appreciate mans inhumanity to man has nothing to do with God. What about the cruelty of nature. Animals, wildlife eating each other alive etc? Any explanations in the Bible? How can we accept that nature is just a nothing in itself? Why is nature so cruel? Keen to hear your views. TIA. I'll take a stab at it. :) According to Genesis, all creatures were created vegetarian, and in Isaiah we read that the lion will lay next to the lamb, etc. Is the caterpiller anaesthetized? That is certainly possible. Does an animal that is terrified (or in shock?) in the face of imminent death, feel the extent or actual pain of usually very swift and effective deadly attacks by true predators? What would you do as Creator, if you have a planet with diverse species that benefited from predation - for the prey, the predators, and ecosystem as a whole -- that, or a planet where everything becomes overrun? Can it work differently? ---- and we humans are part of nature. We humans are not predators. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, As you don't NEED to eat meat - your *every* act of violence against an animal *IS* needless, unless a life-or-death situation. 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT happened to their natural predators, hmmm? Killed to protect your 'livestock' no doubt. .. then use deer's burgeoning population to justify killing them! ..You know not what you do.. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:33:51 -0000, "pearl"
wrote: "Rodney Long" wrote in message ... David H. Lipman wrote: From: "pearl" snip Total bullsh!t. Denying the fact that hominids are omnivorous. It was the extraction of bone marrow that helped early hominids evolve. I don't care if anyone is vegetarian or vegan. It do care when extremists want everyone to follow their POV. This is the same as religious extremism. You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. Learning-resistant, I see. I won't repeat what I've already posted. Prime example, they complain about people killing animals, yet they can no longer, see animals killing animals, animals even torturing other animals, just watch a house cat play with a mouse, or killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals in the air for hours, before finally eating them. Animals kill more animals, than humans do. It's the way nature works, Funny, I just wrote this on another thread: LOL. "Geoff" wrote in message ... OK we appreciate mans inhumanity to man has nothing to do with God. What about the cruelty of nature. Animals, wildlife eating each other alive etc? Any explanations in the Bible? How can we accept that nature is just a nothing in itself? Why is nature so cruel? Keen to hear your views. TIA. I'll take a stab at it. :) According to Genesis, all creatures were created vegetarian, and in Isaiah we read that the lion will lay next to the lamb, etc. Is the caterpiller anaesthetized? That is certainly possible. Does an animal that is terrified (or in shock?) in the face of imminent death, feel the extent or actual pain of usually very swift and effective deadly attacks by true predators? What would you do as Creator, if you have a planet with diverse species that benefited from predation - for the prey, the predators, and ecosystem as a whole -- that, or a planet where everything becomes overrun? Can it work differently? ---- and we humans are part of nature. We humans are not predators. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, As you don't NEED to eat meat - your *every* act of violence against an animal *IS* needless, unless a life-or-death situation. 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT happened to their natural predators, hmmm? Killed to protect your 'livestock' no doubt. .. then use deer's burgeoning population to justify killing them! ..You know not what you do.. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
Geoff wrote:
and we humans are part of nature. We humans are not predators. I see your brain is not functioning "Humans" have always been predators, every evidence of modern man has shown them to be predators "ALL" OF RECORDED HISTORY SHOWS HIM TO BE ONE, AT THE LEAST, THAT IS 10,000 YEARS OF MAN'S PREDATION. YOU HAVE TO BE BRAIN DEAD, NOT TO ACCEPT THAT. You "personally" may not be a predator, not until your starving to death, then you will become one. You or anyone else "claiming" man is not a predator, with all the evidence to "PROVE" he has always been one, since he has become "man". Shows that your brain does not function in reality. Your Veg'ee cult is less than 50 years old . except for some weird "religious" nuts that believe in reincarnation, they are afraid they will eat their grand dad if they eat meat, or they will come back as a cat if they ever eat meat, and be stuck on Earth forever as a meat eater, those nuts have been around for a long time Will you accept that "some" humans are predators ? How about 90 + % of the world's population eat meat ? well at least when they get the chance, they will, and do. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, As you don't NEED to eat meat You don't "need" to use electricity, or oil, cars, a house, roads, shopping centers, airports, and cities, these very things have destroyed more wild animals, than hunting animals. the loss of their habitat (your grocery stores and farms that raise your veggies) have killed, and keep killing more animals than me, and others trying to now control their populations due to "YOUR" life style !!!!!!!!!!!!!! - your *every* act of violence against an animal *IS* needless, unless a life-or-death situation. You driving to work on a road is needless. 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT happened to their natural predators, hmmm? Killed to protect your 'livestock' no doubt. Some of the natural deer predators were indeed killed out, but one "natural" predator remains,,, "man" ... then use deer's burgeoning population to justify killing them! ..You know not what you do.. In my state, we now have more deer, than was here in 1490. Please give us another solution, you will be the first,, oh wait, you want to bring back the wolves, and the cougars, and what will you say when your grand child gets killed by one, that the cougar had the right to kill your grand child ? Ever watch a wolf kill a deer, it sure is not fast, they first cripple the deer, by bitting though the tendons of the legs, then they start feeding from the stomach cavity while the deer is still alive, same for coyotes on a deer kill . My bullet is instant. You can't grasp these "facts" Your brain does not function correctly, due to the lack of animal protein in your diet. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
Is the caterpiller anaesthetized? That is certainly possible. Does an animal that is terrified (or in shock?) in the face of imminent death, feel the extent or actual pain of usually very swift and effective deadly attacks by true predators? I see you have spent little time actually in nature,, the attacks of true predators rarely leads to a swift death for those being prayed on. I have heard a rabbit scream for 10 min. while a coyote ran off with it kicking in his mouth, to take it "alive and hurt" to it's pups to teach them how to kill. Some of the big cats can kill quickly, when attacking smaller game. I recently watched a pride of lions kill a water buffalo on the nature channel, it took 45 min , some of the pride started feeding before the animal had even died. You live in a delusional world,, you need a burger -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
Geoff wrote: and we humans are part of nature. We humans are not predators. I see your brain is not functioning We see from your er BS rant that you have totally lost it. Tsk tsk. snip How about 90 + % of the world's population eat meat ? well at least when they get the chance, they will, and do. 'According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) "Most of the world's population today subsists on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets for reasons that are economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism Try actually doing a bit of research before you hit 'Send', Rodney? when pigs fly |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: Is the caterpiller anaesthetized? That is certainly possible. Does an animal that is terrified (or in shock?) in the face of imminent death, feel the extent or actual pain of usually very swift and effective deadly attacks by true predators? I see you have spent little time actually in nature,, the attacks of true predators rarely leads to a swift death for those being prayed on. I have heard a rabbit scream for 10 min. while a coyote ran off with it kicking in his mouth, to take it "alive and hurt" to it's pups to teach them how to kill. I accept that there are exceptions to the general rule. Some of the big cats can kill quickly, when attacking smaller game. I recently watched a pride of lions kill a water buffalo on the nature channel, it took 45 min , some of the pride started feeding before the animal had even died. Interesting.. you people are always on about post mortem reflexes.. Lions usually grasp the throat to crush the windpipe - a relatively fast death by suffocation, once an animal is downed. 45 minutes to get to that, perhaps, but unlikely feasting on a live kicking buffalo. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message
... You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. You're brain is not functioning properly either - you're being controlled by the idiotic human emotion "compassion", just as the vegetarians are (see below). It's just a matter of degree. Prime example, they complain about people killing animals, yet they can no longer, see animals killing animals, animals even torturing other animals, just watch a house cat play with a mouse, or killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals in the air for hours, before finally eating them. Animals kill more animals, than humans do. It's the way nature works, and we humans are part of nature. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, I dispatch them as quickly as possible. What the heck is wrong with you? See, your brain is not functioning properly. The cat playing with the mouse that you mentioned, and the killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals for hours before finally eating them - do you believe that these animals have any of your idiotic "compassion" for other creatures? Of course they don't, it's just not natural to. So there's something wrong with your brain, it's not functioning properly because you feel that. Just like those vegetarians, except they merely took their silly human "compassion" to another level and actually stopped eating other animals altogether. At least they're consistent about it, anyway. Come on, have some fun with the deer and toss it around for a few hours before biting in and killing it and having your fill - it's nature's way! And don't give in to your goofy human emotionalism about all of it. Be a proud, true animal! That deer I kill, I saved another 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. Why do you care? Do the other animals care at all about the deer starving and suffering horribly? Of course they don't, it's only your idiotic human "compassion" taking you over again that makes you (and those vegetarians) care at all about the suffering of other living things. Get over it, and return to the animal kingdom where you belong! There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your vegetarians can not see these facts any longer, they loose that part or reasoning in their brains,, nothing we meat eaters can do to change their thinking, until they have a couple of hamburgers. They suffer from a chemical imbalance of the brain, and you can't fix it with the antidepressants most of them take. It takes Meat, to solve that problem. Your meat eating obviously hasn't helped you with that, your brain is still not functioning properly. You are still obsessed with your idiotic, unnatural human compassion emotion. That's the problem. Get over it and become a REAL animal again, human wimp! How do I know that,, well my daughter went though that phase a few years back, she decided to stop eating meat, within 6 months she was condemning me for eating meat, and hunting, and fishing. One day my wife started slipping a bit of bacon fat into her veggies, a week later, she started finely grinding a little meat into them, in a month she was normal again, and started hunting, and fishing again, and eating meat daily. She now is a normal wife, and mother, with her own son, and feeds him meat. There is hope for these veg'es, They can be turned back to the force, from the dark side, all someone has to do is slip a little hidden meat into their diet, then those neurons that have not been fed, start working again, next thing you know, they will be out with a shotgun, duck hunting :-) Trust me - you'll find hunting a lot more fun if you do it using the "weapons" you were born with - not those crafty human inventions. They serve only to further remove you from the animal world where you really belong. You should catch your prey with your mouth and claws and eat it raw - that's how we REAL animals do it, human wimp. Now get with the program, will you?? -Tiger -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Tiger" wrote in message ...
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ... You can't reason with a vegetarian, they have lost the protein in their diet, that allows their brains to function properly. You're brain is not functioning properly either - you're being controlled by the idiotic human emotion "compassion", just as the vegetarians are (see below). It's just a matter of degree. Prime example, they complain about people killing animals, yet they can no longer, see animals killing animals, animals even torturing other animals, just watch a house cat play with a mouse, or killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals in the air for hours, before finally eating them. Animals kill more animals, than humans do. It's the way nature works, and we humans are part of nature. I hunt, and I fish, I can't stand to see a creature suffer needlessly, I dispatch them as quickly as possible. What the heck is wrong with you? See, your brain is not functioning properly. The cat playing with the mouse that you mentioned, and the killer whales tossing "injured" baby seals for hours before finally eating them - do you believe that these animals have any of your idiotic "compassion" for other creatures? Of course they don't, it's just not natural to. So there's something wrong with your brain, it's not functioning properly because you feel that. Just like those vegetarians, except they merely took their silly human "compassion" to another level and actually stopped eating other animals altogether. At least they're consistent about it, anyway. Come on, have some fun with the deer and toss it around for a few hours before biting in and killing it and having your fill - it's nature's way! And don't give in to your goofy human emotionalism about all of it. Be a proud, true animal! That deer I kill, I saved another 2 deer from starving to death, slowly, during the winter, we must control their numbers, or starvation , and disease will make them suffer horribly. Why do you care? Do the other animals care at all about the deer starving and suffering horribly? Of course they don't, it's only your idiotic human "compassion" taking you over again that makes you (and those vegetarians) care at all about the suffering of other living things. Get over it, and return to the animal kingdom where you belong! There is documented evidence of this, when Pennsylvania banned deer hunting for ten years, they lost tens of thousands of deer to starvation and disease each year, tell me these deer did not suffer, needlessly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your vegetarians can not see these facts any longer, they loose that part or reasoning in their brains,, nothing we meat eaters can do to change their thinking, until they have a couple of hamburgers. They suffer from a chemical imbalance of the brain, and you can't fix it with the antidepressants most of them take. It takes Meat, to solve that problem. Your meat eating obviously hasn't helped you with that, your brain is still not functioning properly. You are still obsessed with your idiotic, unnatural human compassion emotion. That's the problem. Get over it and become a REAL animal again, human wimp! How do I know that,, well my daughter went though that phase a few years back, she decided to stop eating meat, within 6 months she was condemning me for eating meat, and hunting, and fishing. One day my wife started slipping a bit of bacon fat into her veggies, a week later, she started finely grinding a little meat into them, in a month she was normal again, and started hunting, and fishing again, and eating meat daily. She now is a normal wife, and mother, with her own son, and feeds him meat. There is hope for these veg'es, They can be turned back to the force, from the dark side, all someone has to do is slip a little hidden meat into their diet, then those neurons that have not been fed, start working again, next thing you know, they will be out with a shotgun, duck hunting :-) Trust me - you'll find hunting a lot more fun if you do it using the "weapons" you were born with - not those crafty human inventions. They serve only to further remove you from the animal world where you really belong. You should catch your prey with your mouth and claws and eat it raw - that's how we REAL animals do it, human wimp. Now get with the program, will you?? -Tiger LOL!! Note: 'in·hu·man adj. 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel. 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold. 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment. 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous. ... inhuman adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman 'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. .... The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth. ....' http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
'According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) "Most of the world's population today subsists on vegetarian or near-vegetarian """""near-vegetarian""""""" means they have nothing against the eating of meat, it means they can't "afford" meat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It means they will eat it, when they can afford it it, and many of these people are starving to death on a daily bases . What is "most" what is the percentage, and why was "near vegetarians" in that group ?,, because you, and the Hindu's are it, for total vegetarians, the numbers are TOO LOW FOR YOU to spout your Bull **** ! about man not being a predator. At least the Hindu's don't eat meat for a good reason to them,, they don't want to eat Grand Dad :-) diets for reasons that are economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism I see the number one reason is "economic", just like I already knew. what percentage is because of that ? Try actually doing a bit of research before you hit 'Send', Rodney? when pigs fly Actually it's not worth my time, I have many years actually spent in nature, all of this research today is funded by left wing tree huggers to left wing tree huggers, who try to "prove" their beliefs, not those who look for truth. They twist the numbers,, like adding starving people, who would "kill" for a piece of meat, under the heading of "vegetarian" so they can claim "most" people, so people like you can imply they are that way because of choice, or in your case, genetics, when in fact these people are starving to death, at the least 80% or more of their income goes just to buy food. Us "meat eaters" and our scientist don't "waste" funds, or time, looking to prove this one way or another. We don't give a rat's butt, if a group of people don't want, to want meat, what we care about is that bunch trying to legislate, or brain wash our kids with their TRIPE. Why do you care 90% of the world eats meat when they get a chance ? It's none of your business what I do, unless it "hurts" your "rights", animals have no rights, it's the strongest, and smartest that survive , it's the way this world rotates, it has for millions of years, man is just a late comer , we can not "change" all of nature. What makes man a murder to "some" when he kills animals, yet the other predators are not considered murders for doing the same thing ? What it is, is some people can/could no longer survive in nature , SO they don't want to feel inferior, to those who can, so they "invent" reasons for their lack of ability, now a desired trait that brought their ancestors to this place in time, is considered WRONG, this makes them feel like they are not missing anything, they now think they are not inferior, but superior, they seek out others like themselves to build up this lie . Then to take this lie further, they go out and try to change history to what they believe. Trying to built themselves up in their own mind. They start forming radical groups like PETA (a terrorists organization) They start trying to make animals have more rights than man, that a man's life is not worth more than any animals right, that it's OK to let a child die, if killing an animal can save the child, the animal has more, or equal rights. That' it's better to have ten's of thousands of humans die needlessly, than kill ten animals to find a cure. These people claim to be compassionate, yet they will instantly let "people" suffer, and die . They only have compassion for animals, not even their own children. much less for human kind. These people are mentally ill, and should be institutionalized, force feeding them only meat, for a couple of months, will cure them. The lack of animal protein in these people's diets have warped their minds. They have lost their ability to survive, if we, as the human race, follow them, we will all be gone in a thousand years. Which is what PETA wants, they want animals, to take the Earth back. -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: --- "Rodney Long" wrote How about 90 + % of the world's population eat meat ? well at least when they get the chance, they will, and do. --- 'According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) "Most of the world's population today subsists on vegetarian or near-vegetarian """""near-vegetarian""""""" means they have nothing against the eating of meat, it means they can't "afford" meat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It means they will eat it, when they can afford it it, Calm down. In some cases, but certainly not all. It continues: diets for reasons that are economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism and many of these people are starving to death on a daily bases . Oops... 'C: Third World Poverty Caused by the Animal Exploitation Industry. The Animal exploitation industries have boosted third world poverty in a number of ways:- C.a) The Expropriation of Land. A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture, "A quarter of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other livestock .."55 ['About 29 percent of the world's land surface is used for livestock production, either by permanent pasture for grazing or croplands for animal fodder and feed. www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0511sp1.htm 'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land has so deteriorated that it has lost at least 25 percent of its animal carrying capacity [3]. UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999. ] Some of this land has been acquired through expropriation. This is as true in the third world today as it was centuries ago in the over-industrialized nations. Large numbers of poor people have been imprisoned, made homeless, killed, or have starved as a result of big landowners expropriating land for pasture. The same sort of expropriation has occurred, although not on the same scale, to provide grains for livestock Animals in the over-industrialized world. As has been pointed out above 14% of the land in third world countries is being used for cash crops although it is not known what proportion of this land is being used to grow grains for the Animal exploitation industry. C.b) The Expropriation of Food. Large areas of pastureland in the disintegrating/industrializing countries are used for livestock Animals which are exported to the over-industrialized world. Huge numbers of people in these countries go hungry even though they are surrounded by livestock Animals, "Birds Eye Walls import 30,000 tonnes of beef from Brazil every year." Although meat exports from third world countries continue to grow, they are declining relative to meat exports from the over-industrialied nations. The same is also true as regards the crops which provide feed for livestock Animals. Huge numbers of people are going hungry even though third world countries are producing vast quantities of grains which are exported to feed livestock in the over-industrialized nations, "Although soybeans are consumed directly as tofu and soy sauce in many countries, food use accounts for a small fraction of the world harvest. Most of the world's soybeans are grown primarily for the protein meal that is widely used in pork and poultry rations. Argentina and Brazil .. crush most of their beans and export them largely as meal, retaining much of the oil for domestic consumption." The over-industrialized world cannot grow enough feed for its livestock and have to import huge quantities of fodder from third world countries, "Because of the large amounts of grain required to produce beef, the geographic location of cattle herds can be misleading. Most industrial countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to support their meat consumption. Beef production is particularly land-intensive, because one calorie of meat production requires 3 calories of grain inputs for pork and 10 calories for beef. Land requirements can be up to 50 times higher than for protein production from grain. As a result, a great deal of the feed consumed in industrialized countries is not produced on the home farm, but purchased from developing countries. For example, Western Europe imports more than 40%, or 21 million tons per year, of its feed grains from the Third World.";"Feeding the meat-eating (world) class takes nearly 40% of the world's grain, grown on close to one-fifth of the world's cropland."; "There has been a fundamental shift in world agriculture this century from food grains to feed grains, and cattle now compete with people for food. A third of the world's fish catch and more than a third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."61 Huge numbers of third world peoples are starving because the crops grown in their country are exported to fatten Animals in the over-industrialized nations, "More people are hungry now than ever before. Many states where hunger is prevalent are net exporters of food." Even during times of famine, grains continue to be exported from third world countries to the over-industrialized world, "In addition, about two-thirds of the total domestic grain crop goes to feed-lots. The agribusiness production of grains for foreign exchange-earning exports to the industrialized region is one among several factors in the displacement of the rural poor in the Third world onto marginal, ecologically sensitive land. The magnitude of the food value involved in this trade is significant: the 500 million people suffering starvation could find relief from this condition if they had the cash to buy the grains exported to industrial country feedlots. In that sense, the present level of meat consumption in the wealthy industrialized countries is directly related to starvation in the poor countries of the world." C.c) The Expropriation of Resources. Third world elites devote huge quantities of resources, from water, minerals, and fossil fuels to the Animal exploitation industry when these resources could be used to alleviate third world poverty, "While it takes, on average, 25 gallons of water (113 litres) to produce a pound of wheat in modern Western farming systems, it requires an astounding 2,500 gallons (11,250 litres) of water to produce a pound of meat." C.d) Third world Elites Exploiting their own People for the sake of Meat. Animals are a major export earner in many third world countries .. "African export earnings from this source (live animals, meat, hides and skins) exceed those from tobacco, tea or bauxite." Just as was the case with exports of cash crops and raw materials for the car industries, the wealth generated by Animal exports is expropriated by third world elites. Third world elites, like consumers in the over-industrialized nations, are meat eaters, and some of their countries' export earnings are used to sustain a carnivorous diet. Third world elites would rather spend money on buying meat for their own consumption rather than alleviating poverty. They are therefore responsible for some of the poverty caused by the Animal exploitation industry. C.e) Rich in Meat, Poor in Wealth. There is a general rule about the Animal exploitation industry in third world countries and this is that the greater the wealth generated by Animal exports the greater the scale of poverty. For example .. "meat exporting countries are among Africa's poorest and most drought stricken: Chad, Sudan, Niger, Somalia, Mali, Botswana and Namibia." There are a number of reasons for this:- Firstly, because third world countries' export earnings are confiscated by third world elites rather than disbursed throughout the population; Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry is such a land extensive enterprise that little land left for the development of local agriculture or other industries; Thirdly, the Animal exploitation industry uses only a small workforce, thereby further limiting the spread of wealth throughout the population; and, Finally, the Animal exploitation industry is a capital intensive industry which means that little capital is left for other industries. As a consequence, "No other agro-export has contributed less to the welfare of the Guatemalan population than beef. Cattle ranching has displaced hundreds of small farmers and employed very few workers. Moreover, Guatemala was no exception to the process common throughout central America by which countries of the region rapidly increased beef exports to the united states to meet the demands of fast food chains like MacDonalds, while per capita domestic consumption declined." .... C.g) The Animal Exploitation Industry exacerbates Global Warming which will Increase Third World Poverty. The Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to global warming. It boosts global warming through Animal flatulence, the consumption of fossil fuels to help run the Animal exploitation industries, and through the destruction of the Earth's Phytosynthetic capacity e.g. the destruction of Forests. The ecological devastation caused by the Animal exploitation industry is enormous:- Firstly, a quarter of the Earth's land surface is now used for pasture and much of this has been created by razing Forests, "In Mexico alone, 37 million acres of forest have been destroyed since 1987 to provide grazing land for cattle."; Secondly, some of the land used to provide fodder for livestock has also been created by razing Forests; and, Thirdly, huge numbers of people who have been chucked off their land by Animal exploiters invade the Forests in order to grow crops. They use primitive slash/burn techniques which entails setting fire to the Forests to provide fertiliser ash for crops. Due to the increasing numbers of slash/burn farmers the Forests no longer have the time to recover. Most of the damage resulting from the Animal exploitation industry is caused by the over-industrialized countries but the third world also contributes to the damage. Once again it is likely that third world countries not only benefit least from the Animal exploitation industry, but will suffer the most from the climatic disasters caused by this industry. C.h) Conclusions. There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from this sketch of the poverty caused by the Animal exploitation industry:- Firstly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world countries than any other industry. It is by far and away the biggest cause of third world poverty. Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world countries than all the cash crop industries combined - e.g. coffee/tea. Thirdly, third world poverty will never be abolished until some of the land currently being used by the Animal exploitation industry is distributed to the poor in order to abolish global poverty. Fourthly, most livestock Animals are consumed in the over-industrialized world, "Most people in the world live on a substantially vegetarian diet. Meat eating is a habit largely peculiar to the affluent West."; "Per capita meat consumption is currently six times higher in the industrialized countries than in the developing world (78kg/cap-yr compared to 14 kg/cap-yr). Moreover, while industrial country per capita consumption has risen by another 20% in the last 15 years, it has stagnated in the Third World." Finally, it is impossible for everyone in third world countries to eat as much meat as consumers in the over-industrialized nations. Despite the fact that china now produces as much meat as america, it has a far larger population than america and will never be able to produce the same level of per capita meat consumption, "China and the United States now dominate world meat production. Somewhat surprisingly, surging pork production in China in recent years has made it the world's leading consumer of red meat. Its output of red meat in 1992 totalled 31.6 million tons, compared with 18.6 million tons in the United States. When poultry is included, total meat production in China is nearly 37 million tons versus 31 million tons in the United States."72; "The major producers of poultry in 1993 were the United States at 12.5 million tons, China at 5.1mt, Brazil at 3.2mt, and France at 2 mt. Together, these four countries accounted for over half of world poultry output." ....' http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics...2/11sp12b.html rant snipped |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
rant snipped TRUTH IGNORED, AS ALWAYS WITH YOUR GROUP,, IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR "BELIEFS" YOU TOSS IT OUT. TELL ME, WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD DIE, IF AN ANIMAL'S DEATH COULD SAVE IT ?????????????????????????????????????? -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: rant snipped TRUTH IGNORED, AS ALWAYS WITH YOUR GROUP,, IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR "BELIEFS" YOU TOSS IT OUT. Projection. 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.' The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm TELL ME, WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD DIE, IF AN ANIMAL'S DEATH COULD SAVE IT ?????????????????????????????????????? Not in that position. Are you? Tell us.. Will you let people continue to die, if quitting your meat habit could save them? |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:08:08 -0600, Rodney Long wrote:
pearl wrote: The FACTS are on our side. Total bull S. that I snipped, you quoted every source there is on your side,, a hand full of nut cases. less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the scientist that work in this field, 99.5 % of all the other PHD's totally disagree. Of course everyone of these you quoted are either members of PETA, or some other cult group,, they came to their conclusions, "then", they looked for evidence to match their conclusions, throwing out anything they found that did not agree. None are respected in their fields, by their piers I bet they totally freaked when they found out (just a few years ago) Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,, some say 50,000 years There is no "recorded history" when they were not both, so for at least the past 8,000 years they have been killers, and meat eaters, do your experts try to explain this away ? I don't think they can even if they tried to toss out all the "written" evidence. The theory of evolution would say any humans that were not killers, would be killed out by those that were Much of human history supports that too. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ... pearl wrote: rant snipped TRUTH IGNORED, AS ALWAYS WITH YOUR GROUP,, IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR "BELIEFS" YOU TOSS IT OUT. ANSWER THE QUESTION TELL ME, WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD DIE, IF AN ANIMAL'S DEATH COULD SAVE IT ?????????????????????????????????????? -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
pearl wrote:
TELL ME, WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD DIE, IF AN ANIMAL'S DEATH COULD SAVE IT ?????????????????????????????????????? Not in that position. Are you? Sorry I missed that at the bottom Tell us.. Will you let people continue to die, if quitting your meat habit could save them? Hay, what I eat has nothing to do with anyone but me, I'm not letting anyone do anything, and I'm not keeping them from doing anything, am I going them to force them to stop eating meat,,,, hell no , that's up to them, but all they need to do is change their meat consumption from beef and pork to chicken , fish, and goat. all of which is "good" for ANYONE Do you agree to let them test drugs on animals, and kill the animals, so your child can live ? Would you feed your child meat, if their was not other food available ? -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
From: "Rodney Long"
| | I see you have spent little time actually in nature,, the attacks of | true predators rarely leads to a swift death for those being prayed on. | | I have heard a rabbit scream for 10 min. while a coyote ran off with it | kicking in his mouth, to take it "alive and hurt" to it's pups to teach | them how to kill. | | Some of the big cats can kill quickly, when attacking smaller game. I | recently watched a pride of lions kill a water buffalo on the nature | channel, it took 45 min , some of the pride started feeding before the | animal had even died. | | You live in a delusional world,, you need a burger Rodney: Please stop feeding this PITA PETA Troll. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: TELL ME, WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILD DIE, IF AN ANIMAL'S DEATH COULD SAVE IT ?????????????????????????????????????? Not in that position. Are you? Sorry I missed that at the bottom Tell us.. Will you let people continue to die, if quitting your meat habit could save them? Hay, what I eat has nothing to do with anyone but me, Aren't you forgetting about the animals? Don't they count? I'm not letting anyone do anything, and I'm not keeping them from doing anything, am I going them to force them to stop eating meat,,,, hell no , that's up to them, but all they need to do is change their meat consumption from beef and pork to chicken , fish, and goat. all of which is "good" for ANYONE You appear to be very keen on promoting it, ignoring studies. Do you agree to let them test drugs on animals, and kill the animals, so your child can live ? Absolutely not. "I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful result." Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986. "I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished because they only lead us to error." Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987. Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. "As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal experiments. They are totally useless, they don't contribute in any way to progress of medicine." Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word, ATRA, December 1986. Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. "My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity." Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933. http://www.health.org.nz/foreartl.html http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html Adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs are -at least- the fourth leading cause of death in the West. Surprise? Good work. 'Deaths per year (US) 6 ------------------------------------------------------- heart disease 709,894 cancer 551,833 stroke 166,028 diabetes 68,662 high blood pressure 17,964 ------------------------------------------------------ ... Number of Americans Living with Diet- and Inactivity-Related Diseases ------------------------------------------------------- Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000 High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000 Diabetes10 15,700,000 Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000 Osteoporosis7 10,000,000 Cancer11 8,900,000 Stroke9 4,600,000 ------------------------------------------------------- ...' http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpoli...on_policy.html "Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. .."... C. David Coats (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm) .... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million. Would you feed your child meat, if their was not other food available ? Put another way.. If eating animal flesh was necessary for good health or survival we'd not be having this discussion. |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
"pearl" wrote in message ...
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ... .. I'm not letting anyone do anything, and I'm not keeping them from doing anything, am I going them to force them to stop eating meat,,,, hell no , that's up to them, but all they need to do is change their meat consumption from beef and pork to chicken , fish, and goat. all of which is "good" for ANYONE 'There is a relationship between animal protein and heart disease. For example, plasma apolioprotein B is positively associated with animal-protein intake and inversely associated (lowered) with vegetable-protein intake (e.g., legumes and greens). Apolioprotein B levels correlate strongly with coronary heart disease.1 Unknown to many is that animal proteins have a significant effect on raising cholesterol levels as well, while plant protein lowers it.2 Scientific studies provide evidence that many animal protein's effect on blood cholesterol may be significant. This is one of the reasons those switching to a low fat-diet do no experience the cholesterol lowering they expect unless they also remove the low-fat animal products as well. Surprising to most people is that yes, even low-fat dairy and skinless white-meat chicken raise cholesterol. I see this regularly in my practice. Many individuals do not see the dramatic drop in cholesterol levels unless they go all the way by cutting all animal proteins from their diet. ... Red met is not the only problem. The consumption of chicken and fish is also linked to colon cancer. A large recent study examined the eating habits of 32,000 adults for six years and then watched the incidence of cancer for these subjects over the next six years. Those who avoided red meat but at white meat regularly had a more than 300 percent increase in colon cancer incidence.3 The same study showed that eating beans, peas, or lentils, at least twice a week was associated with a 50 percent lower risk than never eating these foods. Chicken has about the same amount of cholesterol as beef, and the production of those potent cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are even more concentrated in grilled chicken than in beef.4 Another recent study from New Zealand that investigated heterocyclic amines in meat, fish, and chicken found the greatest contributor of HCAs to cancer risk was chicken.5 Likewise, studies indicated that chicken is almost as dangerous as red meat for the heart. Regarding cholesterol, there is no advantage to eating lean white instead of lean red meat.6 ....' http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...onnection.html |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale
David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "Rodney Long" | | I see you have spent little time actually in nature,, the attacks of | true predators rarely leads to a swift death for those being prayed on. | | I have heard a rabbit scream for 10 min. while a coyote ran off with it | kicking in his mouth, to take it "alive and hurt" to it's pups to teach | them how to kill. | | Some of the big cats can kill quickly, when attacking smaller game. I | recently watched a pride of lions kill a water buffalo on the nature | channel, it took 45 min , some of the pride started feeding before the | animal had even died. | | You live in a delusional world,, you need a burger Rodney: Please stop feeding this PITA PETA Troll. Dang I'm having so much fun,, Ok I know it's a waste of time,, still fun :-) -- Rodney Long, Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread, Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures, Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Death of a Whale
From: "Rodney Long"
Rodney: Please stop feeding this PITA PETA Troll. | Dang I'm having so much fun,, Ok I know it's a waste of time,, still fun | :-) | :-) -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter