Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:36AM, solfeggio wrote:

Humans are not obligate or natural omnivores.

A patently false statement not backed up by human biology. Leave out the word 'obligate" since it is not part of any argument except a fallacious, and dishonest, one. Humans are omnivores. We evolved to take advantage of a wide variety of foods - including meat.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:28AM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:36AM, solfeggio wrote:

Humans are not obligate or natural omnivores.

A patently false statement not backed up by human biology. Leave out the word 'obligate" since it is not part of any argument except a fallacious, and dishonest, one. Humans are omnivores. We evolved to take advantage of a wide variety of foods - including meat.

Omnivores have evolved over millions of years to only require 8% meat, and there is NOTHING in meat (in the 21st century) that can't be gotten from plant sources.  

There is even evidence that historically at one time people did not eat meat (the Bible) and then went to meat.  

So what I am saying is not so far off.  So, when that small percentage is compared to the amount of animals slaughtered on this planet to eat, it only makes sense from meat producers' lifestyles to see it as economically desirable to themselves as meat suppliers and nothing else.  We live in a society that is dependent upon making money to survive and that should change also in the future.

Also, slaughter for meat-eating and humans killing humans are two closely linked and closely intertwined behaviors.  Both have to do with dominance and mindlessness; humans should be letting that go by now.  It's too late in the game. 

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:47AM, christine3 wrote:

Omnivores have evolved over millions of years to only require 8% meat, and there is NOTHING in meat (in the 21st century) that can't be gotten from plant sources.

That is not true. Omnivores do not "require" anything. They have the ABILITY to thrive on a VARIETY of foods.

Omnivore: Omnivores (from Latin: omni, meaning "all, everything"; vorare, "to devour") are species that eat both plant and animal material as their primary food sources. They often are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to eating and digesting either meat or plant material in particular. Many omnivores depend on a suitable mix of animal and plant food for long-term good health and reproduction. (source; Wikipedia)

An omnivore is a kind of animal that eats either other animals or plants. Some omnivores will hunt and eat their food, like carnivores, eating herbivores and other omnivores. Some others are scavengers and will eat dead matter. Many will eat eggs from other animals.

Omnivores eat plants, but not all kinds of plants. Unlike herbivores, omnivores can't digest some of the substances in grains or other plants that do not produce fruit. They can eat fruits and vegetables, though. Some of the insect omnivores in this simulation are pollinators, which are very important to the life cycle of some kinds of plants. (source)

Go to that last site and you'll see some pictures of omnivores that might help those with a problem understand what an omnivore really is. 

Changing the definition of a word never makes for a good argument.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 11:08AM, mountain_man wrote:

That is not true. Omnivores do not "require" anything. They have the ABILITY to thrive on a VARIETY of foods.

That suits me fine, lol.

Teilhard, I lived in Southern California where sesame seeds were grown there.  Besides, sesame seeds don't require refrigeration.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:40AM, christine3 wrote:

 Christine:  That's not the point.  If you were a woman would you rather live 1/4 your lifespan from being shot up with milk enhancing hormones to produce 20 times what you would normally, have your bosoms milked with machines as many times a day as will allow, and live in a captive environment?  I'm only putting it to a human experience so it can be understood better.  Walk a day in their shoes...

No ma'am,that IS the point.Without humans needing cows,they don't exist AT ALL.Your complaint of a shortened life is irrelevant when your solution would effectively make the species extinct except for zoo specimens.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:40AM, christine3 wrote:

 If you want to call it talking down to you, go ahead.  It was you who was calling attention to whiners here.  It is not my intent to put anybody down. 

I personally don't care if you use this language.My point is...don't talk about vegetarians and higher life forms and then act innocent  when some here take offense (as some have).If you wish to portray meat eaters as not part of the coming "higher life form",then fine.I will not be offended by someone's weird ideas about eating anymore than I would be about having a beer or having sex if I were talking to a teatotaler or a celibate.I am completely comfortable with them all being a part of my life.Just be honest about your opinion of meat eaters instead of making such statements and then protesting "who,ME?I never meant any offense!"

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:40AM, christine3 wrote:

BTW, doesn't your thumb work after commas and periods? Or are you trying to be annoying? It is difficult reading your posts. 

I have no clue what you are talking about.If you find them annoying,don't read them.No skin off my nose.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:40AM, christine3 wrote:

Christine:  Oh boy, divination has nothing to do with drugs.  The word "divine revelations", assuming from God, is not in my repertoire.  The word "divine" historically comes from the word "divination", so don't knock it until you've tried it.  I.e., if you want immediate contact, use divination.

 Um...think I'll stick with reality.