but you're naturally stupid.



oh, and inept.




OH and stuck at home still making "special" time with dad.

sad, you could have learned about doors... and their knobs that hold the
freedom you so desire.



"Laurie" > wrote in message
abs...
> On 11 Jun, 15:36, Laurie > wrote:
> > > Dragonblaze wrote:
> > > > I'm not evading anything, ...
> Evading, and now lying.
> I am pointing out that as a human falsely claiming you are a
> “omnivore” (without ANY substantiation!), you do not follow the
> undeniable pattern for ALL NATURAL “omnivores” – that of killing,
> dismembering, and eating RAW your animal prey.
> Why don’t you follow your “omnivorous” instincts and follow the
> pattern consistent in all the animal kingdom?
> You are avoiding this critical issue to protect your ego and ‘defend’
> your cultural conditioning; clearly, this means we are NOT natural
> “omnivores”, humans are cultural omnivores, conditioned to do so by a
> sick, deranged, culture that has isolated itself from Nature through the
> misapplication of technology -- starting with fire and tools, in this
> case.
> Of course, if you had any sincere interest in the issue, you could
> simply ask your local two-year-old to eat a mouse or kitten raw, and s/he
> will explain to you that such behavior is not right. Now, why, we ask,
> does a two-year-old have deeper insight than you?
> I’ll answer that one for you, too. The child is closer in touch with
> its instincts because its ego has not been programmed into all those false
> beliefs that plague, control, and dominate you, thus preventing you from
> honest evaluation of the facts.
>
> Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the questions.
>
> > Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
> if you can.
> Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based rational arguments.
> Does someone really need to tell you that?
>
> > I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
> The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your animal prey
> raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do you just chew on an ox’s
> ass, and tear off and eat a chunk – like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you
> hire some one to do the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into
> tiny slices.
> WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL “omnivores” do.
> You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.
>
> > You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
> rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
> Your false paradigm can not be supported with personal insults.
> In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
>
> > We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
> The length of time engaging in this tragedy is irrelevant; the
> important issue is did we “adapt” to omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
> There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that we “adapted” to
> flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology clearly proves that to thinking
> individuals.
> Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by which ANY species
> can “adapt” to a diet differing from its natural one, and you certainly
> can not present any.
>
> > Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
> There is NO evidence supporting your claims.
>
> > [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
> ALL my claim are strongly supported by well over 700 citations to the
> contemporary scientific literature, while you have NO evidence supporting
> your cultural propaganda. NONE!
> You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are caused by your
> bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created by consuming way too much
> protein.
> http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm
>
> > Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
> bogus "research" …
> Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults are all you have,
> in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
> One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF they could
> prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can offer us mindless unsupported
> propaganda, lies, insults, etc.
>
> > [clueless ranting snipped]
> Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?
>
> > You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
> judging from the nonsense you spout.
> More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter into polite,
> academic discussion. Why? Because she does not have the ability.
>
> > … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
> peddle.
> IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it with a few
> judicious citations, yet you can not refute anything I say. Insults, in
> case no one ever told you, are not refutations.
>
> > Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
> when compared to herbivores?
> Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT “herbivores”!
> http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
>
> > EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
> More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with the subject
> matter should be able to present an intelligent summary, but you can not.
>
> > > You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
> > > profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
> > > culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
> > > code and its biochemistry.
> > > Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly
> NOT NATURAL omnivores.
> > > Could you really not grasp this concept on your own?
> As usual, no response to a critical point; do you really not
> comprehend the difference between “do” and “be”?
>
> > I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
> seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not available....
> My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well over 700
> citations to the current scientific literature that fully support my
> claims.
> This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really pathetic.
>
> > … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
> present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
> You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you missed over 700
> citations on my site, or is it just easier to LIE about that?
>
> > I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
> More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.
>
> > Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
> Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on plant-based
> diets.
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> There are several hundred studies cited here for you to ignore like
> a fool.
>
> >> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
> >> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
> that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave any evidence of
> their diets just like chimps, today, do not leave any evidence of their
> diets.
> Isn’t this obvious?
>
> > You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
> You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt to protect your
> ego from dealing honestly with the facts.
>
> >>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
> fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that reason.
> We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.
>
> > Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other
> faith-head.
> The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults is that is all
> you know.
> I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute anything I say with
> fact and logic, but you can not handle that. You are a fraud, a lying
> propagandist with no sign of intellectual ability.
>
> > And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
> about to be challenged later.
> It’s always “later”.
>
> >> > > to explain how and why your alleged vegans switched to a diet
> >> > > including animal ingredients.
> > > Well known! I am surprise that you don’t know even
> this trivial fact.
> > > The foolish migration out of the Tropics into cold
> areas
> > > that produced NO plant foods (fruits) during winter, and
> > > the survival gambit to eat animals, the only thing living
> > > locally. Try to review your "archaeological data" in an
> > > honest way.
>
> > Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
> either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
> “Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human commodity; don’t
> you know even this?
> The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the facts.
> http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
> http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
> http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
> http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
>
> > You're the one making the claim, so you prove it.
> YOU claim human ARE omnivores, yet you can not offer any science that
> suggests so. Your claims are unsupported and fraudulent.
>
> > I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
> There are well over 700 citations n my site; having serious vision
> problems in addition to intellectual and moral ones?
>
> > … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
> Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot support your idiotic
> claims.
>
> >> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
> >> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
> >> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
> some sort of juvenile joke?
> Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the intellectually
> incompetent.
>
> > - and something else I will present later.
> Oh yeah – LATER.
>
> > Chimps supplement their diet with animals.
> Research indicates that animals are not consumed by all adults, as
> they would for nutritional purposes. The facts indicate that flesh is
> distributed to some females in exchange for sexual favors, quite similar
> to human “dating”.
> http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
> http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
> http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
>
> > Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
> eating, and well within human tolerance.
> Not only does this not make any sense, but the human has a strong
> instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe it – try eating some road
> kill that has been ripening in the sunshine for a couple of days. Let’s
> see if YOU can eat putrefying corpses.
>
> > But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
> of all
> recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie creationist would do.
> More lies and insults; what a dunce!
>
> > … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
> to find any.
> Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have not seen, or you
> would not be lying about the lack of citations.
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Start with
> >> > > this article:
> > > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> > > NOT related to natural human diet.
> > Okay....
> What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right, while you are
> wrong??
>
> > The results suggest that early hominids regularly
> exploited relatively open environments …
> After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem into areas
> that did not produce the tropical fruits that made up the great majority
> of their diet, they HAD to change their diet to a deficient compromise for
> survival. That did NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change to
> efficiently process the compromised diet. There are NO know mechanisms
> whereby any species can change their fundamental biochemistry to properly
> handle a diet that is different than the ‘natural one’.
>
> > M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
> Anthro-apologist are frauds!
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a
>
> >. What else can I debunk for you today?
> Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your unsupported claim
> that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why modern “degenerative diseases” are
> all linked to flesh-eating?
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> Do a Pubmed search for <meat the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds
> of references will appear that show that disease is strongly correlated
> with flesh-eating.
>
> > Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
> animal ingredients,
> No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! The study correlated the
> amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in western studies more flesh
> correlated with more disease.
> Here’s a couple of examples.
> http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
> http://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
>
> > … done a critique of Campbell's
> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
> “problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
> “became socially closed-off, and began having occasional irrational bursts
> of anger.”
> “I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week that were
> becoming disabling …”
> This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.
>
> > … I'm not interested in China Study.
> Of course, it challenges your ego. Disinterest is simply avoidance.
>
> >Says a committed faith-head. Such irony....
> Insults show who you really are. Such absurdity.
>
> Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science