Oh, I suspect so. But it’s as funny as hell. It’s also a good opportunity to fight ignorance in case there are any lurkers.
(BTW, accusations of trolling are not allowed on this board outside The Pit. If you think he’s trolling, you should report him)
I have read them in full.
And in what way did I cherrypick? My point was that all HGs obtain at least 1/3 of their diet from animal flesh. I posted all the relevant material to that end. Whether that is healthy or otherwise is quite irrelevant to whether it is factually true.
Trolling at it’s best rises above mere provocation and reaches art. I’m gonna sit back and enjoy both sides of the theater.
True.
Trolling or not, this thread has given me some of the best laughs I’ve had in days. It reminds me of Time Cube Guy at his best.
Oh, I expect to see a “Banned” label under his name within the next 4 hours.
Blake I’m still waiting on the post neolithic cites (europe) you promised me oh so long ago.
All my posts would seem to be on topic, I’m not posting adds on viagra here. Plus I’m the flipping OP on this thread which is a comment on a question, which cites the post it’s in reference to. If you must though.
Blake, given the join date I was very surprised to see so many going for the bait. Still, it became an amusing thread.
To all moderators and administrators I am just commenting on how I enjoy and have a hard time looking away from Internet train wrecks. I, above most things, try very hard to not cause or become involved in such.
In risk of antagonizing others here, JZ… You go. Burn as bright and hot as you may until the powers that be extinguish that light. L
To the powers that be… I am sorry, I’m just looking for as much return for my entertainment dollar as I can find. Please don’t hate me.
The debate seems to exhausted itself. I stand by my point, the classification is somewhat faulty. I still stand by my original post, and I feel it is still a reasonable academic debate. One could make a better measuring stick.
There is that I can find no clearly agreed on method of classification. Which leads to quagmire debates like this. That being said, I never said people were not omnivores.
I did not realize forwarding this would get me voted of the island as soon as I arrived.
That being said, I kept all my posts and responses within the frame of what was being directed at me. Which at times was to much to keep up with.
I cited sources when asked and where appropriate. And my end point has some logic to it, regarding the communicatory effectiveness of the classification being applied.
I did at one point suggest that the term omnivore was ineffective because it may lead people to false conclusions about "how much of what they should eat in their daily lives to maintain health" because the term does not take that into account. Which may have not been appropriate to the thread.
The debate itself seems to me to be a quagmire.
Since I'm being kicked off this, its been fun guys, thanks hoped to hang around and comment on other stuff of a less mucky nature. But at times it's fun to be made to play the devils advocate, hope it was fun.
It was not my intention to antagonize, or troll as the case may be.
Game over for me it seems.You have issues with the term omnivore. We get that.
You have issues with the term omnivore. We really get that.
You said we were frugivores or granivores.
Voting you off the island has nothing to do with your position.
And we demolished those cites.
No it doesn’t. Your end point is based on faulty premises, bad cites, and so forth.
Only if you refuse to understand the word omnivore.
If you truly weren’t trolling (and I’m willing to believe you weren’t) you have nothing to fear.
We’ve had crazier positions put forth in Comments. We’ve had worse debaters.
JZ… from me and for what it is worth. If indeed you believe what you have advocated, I admire your passion even if I do not appreciate your reasoning. As others would say, look deeper and try to leave your personal biases aside, at least as much as you are able. That said, be passionate about the things you believe in and argue your side to the best of your ability, always.
Hootie
You try debating this position, see how you do!
I meant to ask you about this last night; You have provided many citations. Almost without exception, those cited sources have let your argument down, often by stating something that is baldly contrary to the point you are making when you cite it, or at least contradicting a different part of your argument, stated in other posts (others have pointed this out quite abundantly, so I don’t feel the need to revisit specific cases - they’re up there in the thread already)…
Anyway… what I really want to know is: Why do you think your cited sources are so consistently failing to make your point? It’s not that your audience is capricious or obtuse - because the contradiction between your argument and the words in your sources is so severe. So why does this keep happening?
Assuming you’re not just trolling (and I don’t assume that, at the moment) I can only think of two possible reasons:
You arrived at your current position independently of the evidence, and are now seeking to support your conclusion with existing evidence - which unfortunately doesn’t fit - in which case, you need to reconsider your conclusions.
or
You arrived at your current position based on sources which for one reason or another, you have not presented here - in which case, you need to present these supporting sources, or, if you feel they are not rigorous enough, reconsider why you based your conclusion on them.
Or maybe there’s some other reason? If so, what is it? Either way, it is undeniable that your sources as presented in this thread, do not agree with your argument. What gives?
I hope not.
I felt, the ice man find, and hair analyses, was startling. It was compelling to me that despite the fact he had meat in his stomach and tools for hunting, he would eat a high vegetation diet. So much so the they would choose to define it as in their words primarily plant based.
This lead me next to realize that some of the health problems in the western world have been linked to high intake of animal proteins. What is known as the China study furthered that in my mind, as well as the arguments of dietitians.
It then started to bother me that if thinking in evolutionary terms, why a human being eating animal protein would suffer any ill effect at all. Nature would theoretically select for this, over time.
I then looked to our nearest relative the chimp, who in my minds diet seemed to match the finding in ice man, some meat, but it could definitely be described as primarily vegetation.
Which then brought me to look into some ancestral creatures, very far back where again in the case of lucy, the diet looked more plant based.
So then I looked at classifications of animals, and what was considered an omnivore, and what qualifications had to be met to fit the definition. I found and experienced a great deal of disagreement.
I considered the role of technology, culture, and health in making that classification. And it intuitively did not sit well with me. Technology is a heavy factor in the human omnivore, where in the bear omnivore it is not.
It seemed others to took issue with the classification being to general, as it was listed on wiki.
I found this particular site, and posted my comment as I was doing the research at the time. To see what sort of other information or conclusions were out there. I linked to my inbox, which flooded quite quickly, the information came pouring in to quickly to handle, so it became a tangled web of arguments between me and 4 people at a given time regarding 3 or 4 unique points. Fortunately the past few days I was snowed in and had nothing better to do, so I attempted to keep up with it all. Because it of the amount of information pouring in, and some almost rudeness, I found it hard to respond to every comment at once in a collected manner.
Does that address your question?
Huh? The cherrypicking line wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at the person I have already accused several times of cherrypicking lines and not reading the rest of links. Hint. Initials are JZesbaugh.
Mister Owl, you don’t seem to appreciate how the game is played. It’s for the readers. They got some serious instruction in how to dissect a faulty argument along with some actual science about the human body and some satire as well. I can’t think of how I could I made clearer what I thought about the OP without getting a warning. But the OP left himself nowhere to go after this. He dug his own grave and filled it in on top of him. We tamped it down good. So Seattle VJ with the interesting approach to the written English language. Hope the snowstorm lifted and you can find another hobby. Maybe edit another movie. Maybe you can go back to the Vegetarians Are Evil board and play “devil’s advocate” there again. Maybe your ListOwn date will think you’re as cool as your mother does. Here, it’s over.
I suppose I should be flattered you took the time. I’m guessing you didn’t read the post I left on that particular site. It’s a great piece of satire about an egg laying monster. (really) But I did in this case make a post on a topic I was interested in. As I made other posts on this forum on things I was interested in.
I’m not sure how this is a post on the topic thread and not well, a very nasty personal attack. But yes I am a video editor, and work as a producer on various films, and do commercial advertising consulting from time to time. I did work with VJ I am for a while, it’s mostly for kids, but they needed me a few times to fill some spots.
I don’t see how my personal life is relevant at all. But I think even though it’s not relevant to the thread, I have a right to say that after what you just said to, and about me.
I carefully did not use your name, so I stayed within the rules of this board. I also carefully did not state anything else directly because that’s also a board no-no. I did long ago report you to the moderators, though. Your functional illiteracy in posting as yourself actually makes you more credible because that shows that the illiteracy of your posts here were legitimate. Not something I would be overly proud of, myself.
Here is a good pre-existing model for what I’m saying. So you can understand my reasoning a bit better.
“Eventually a new and perhaps simplified paradigm is explored and proposed which challenges the existing paradigm. New methods may be used as new theories are proposed and proven. This work is outside of the canon of normal science and assumes that the dominant paradigm is probably not fully true in certain circumstances.”
There’s nothing paradigmatic about your argument.
Apparently, what your quasi-intellectual meandering amounts to is that you want to change the definitions of “herbivore” and “omnivore” for the sole reason of serving your socio-political interest in persuading the public to Eat More Vegetables.
The fact is however that you have failed to offer any credible objective reason to accept these re-definitions. In fact, you can’t even state your new definitions in any way other than adding a modification that amounts to nothing more than “except for humans, because excessive consumption of meat has negative consequences in the long term.”
There is nothing scientific or rational or objective about this redefinition. It’s entirely sui generis, a priori, and agenda driven.
You fundamentally misunderstand evolution and natural selection.
“In the pre-paradigmatic stage there is confusion as multiple paradigms are put forward by different schools of thought.”
How to classify human beings, tons of discussion, run a google search. Two schools of thought on how to classify.
“Over time, as the ideas compete, scientists cluster around a small set of paradigms (often two), each trying to support their own ideas and destroy the opposing paradigms. Eventually, one paradigm wins through and becomes the dominant principle.”
So far we are good, human beings are omnivores.
"Most science is ‘normal science’, in which scholars accept the dominant paradigm of the day, performing experiments that test and prove its efficacy in a range of situations. New explanations may extend the paradigm but do not change its fundamental nature.
In this way, the paradigm may grow with many extensions to explain the various exceptional cases that are not easily covered by the original paradigm. "
“We have some areas in which human beings are carnivores, and other areas in which human beings are herbivores, lots in the middle.”
“This work is outside of the canon of normal science and assumes that the dominant paradigm is probably not fully true in certain circumstances.”
Not all living human beings can be classified as omnivores. Further(more), technology confounds the situation. We are applying the same term to beings which are technological or non-technological.
But yes by traditional logic/reasoning we are omnivores. When have I not said that?