"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Elflord" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>>> On 2008-02-22, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 'For a Nebraskan, going vegetarian means going against the grain
> >>>>>>> Nothing but style elevated over substance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Humans are naturally omnivores.
> >>>>>> That's fine,
> >>>>> Humans are biologically (and psychologically) frugivores.
> >>>> Meaningless.
> >>> Well into the 21st century, it's about time humans knew what
> >>> kind of animal we are. Many believe humans are omnivores!
> >>>
> >>>> "Psychologically" is bullshit, anyway; no such thing.
> >>> Psychology is a very important aspect of human nature.
> >> Humans are not "psychologically" frugivores. The claim
> >> is meaningless bullshit.
> >
> > To you, certainly.
>
> It's just unsupported crazy bullshit, period. You made
> it up. It is meaningless to say that humans are
> "psychologically" frugivores; utterly meaningless bullshit.

You don't get it. As for others, it's a matter of cultural
conditioning, nutritional misinformation, and addiction.

Plutarch (c. 56 - 120 A.D.) (Roman historian and scholar) -

"Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining
from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident
and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched
his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead
creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and
ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little
before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes
endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and
limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?
How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which
made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and
serums from mortal wounds? . The obligations of law and
equity reach only to mankind, but kindness and benevolence
should be extended to the creatures of every species, and
these will flow from the breast of a true man, in streams that
issue from the living fountain. Man makes use of flesh not out
of want and necessity, seeing that he has the liberty to make his
choice of herbs and fruits, the plenty of which is inexhaustible;
but out of luxury, and being cloyed with necessaries, he seeks
after impure and inconvenient diet, purchased by the slaughter
of living beasts; by showing himself more cruel than the most
savage of wild beasts ... were it only to learn benevolence to
human kind, we should be merciful to other creatures. . It is
certainly not lions and wolves that we eat out of self-defense;
on the contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless, tame
creatures without stings or teeth to harm us, creatures that, I
swear, Nature appears to have produced for the sake of their
beauty and grace. But nothing abashed us, not the flower-like
tinting of the flesh, not the persuasiveness of the harmonious
voice, not the cleanliness of their habits or the unusual
intelligence that may be found in the poor wretches. No, for
the sake of a little flesh we deprive them of sun, of light, of
the duration of life to which they are entitled by birth and
being. Why do you belie the earth, as if it were unable to feed
and nourish you? Does it not shame you to mingle murder and
blood with her beneficent fruits? Other carnivores you call
savage and ferocious - lions and tigers and serpents - while
yourselves come behind them in no species of barbarity.
And yet for them murder is the only means of sustenance!
Whereas to you it is superfluous luxury and crime!"

> >>>> Being a "frugivore" does not mean "doesn't naturally
> >>>> eat meat".
> >>> 'According to Tuttle,
> >> You've never read Tuttle. Shut your ****ing mouth.
> >
> > Not celebrating
>
> non sequitur

Very sequitur.

> You never read "Tuttle"; you've never read *any*
> original material. You've done nothing but slavishly
> copypasta stuff from web pages, and you don't even
> understand the stuff you sloppily copypasta.

Evasion, attempted diversion and ad hominem noted.