On Jul 9, 7:29=A0am, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dragonblaze wrote:
> > ... =A0my cat gets the best nutrition available.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Really? =A0Totally raw animals it can eat with its own
ph=
ysiological
> equipment.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 One might hope that you could take an enlightened
interes=
t in your
> own health, and get some experiential insight into the power inherent
> in raw diets.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Of course, you erroneous believe that you are an
"omnivor=
e", when
> that word can not be defined in a fundamental physiological; or
> instinctual level.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 IF humans are mysterious, undefinable "omnivores", WHY
do=
n't little
> children INSTINCTIVELY EAT LITTLE ANIMALS?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 If you give an infant a rabbit and apple, it will eat
the=
apple and
> play with the rabbit. =A0In your pathological mindset, the infant will
> eat the rabbit, of course RAW, and play with the apple.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 If a two-year-old instinctively knows to eat the apple
an=
d play with
> the rabbit, WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? =A0 =A0 =A0
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Your own mindless following of your cultural
conditioning=
is leading
> to your own detriment.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The humorous thing about your boundless arrogance is
that=
you can not
> admit the fact that ALL species on this little mudball EVOLVED on a
> TOTALLY RAW DIET, and all still do, except for the sickest species on
> the planet: humans.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You imply that humans have "adapted" to cooked food and
a=
nimal
> -eating, but there is not one scrap of information in contem****ary
> evolution literature that suggests that ANY animal can "adapt" to a
> diet chemically different than that species' natural one.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Here is one explanation of why the meatarians here can't
=
function,
> intellectually.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You maintain the false 'omnivore' dogma, but you can NOT
=
present any
> rational, scientifically-credible argument that even suggests that
> humans are "omnivores"; you can not even present a definition based
> on physiology, anatomy, and
biochemistry.http://ecologos.org/omni.htmhttp=
://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You claim that humans "adapted" to the current, cooked
cu=
ltural diets
> around the planet; however, there is NO attempt in current evolutionary
> theory that presents a credible mechanism for such false "adaptation".
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You can't even try to engage with me in polite academic
d=
iscussion,
> because you are afraid =A0of me, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls, Dutch,
> dh, and the rest of the pathological, intentionally-disruptive trolling
> buffoons, here.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Not a one of you can design a meaningful argument to
supp=
ort your
> mindless meatarian dogma constantly expounded in public.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You are all gutless, evasive, intellectual frauds.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You, collectively, are embarrassments to the human
specie=
s.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Laurie
>
> "Ignorance and arrogance pave the road to self-destruction." =A0-- LauFo
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human
diets:http://ecologos.o=
rg/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science
Perhaps in a tribe-in-the-Amazon setting, if you gave a child a grub
and a piece of fruit it just may very well go for the grub. The rabbit
analogy was not a good one. To much processing required to eat the
rabbit. Humans ancestors such as homo habilis were scavengers that ate
prey that had been previously killed. They didn't have the technology
to do the job themselves.
|
