See other Activism Articles
Title: Sarah Palin Champions Barbaric Aerial Hunting of Wolves
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ
Published: Sep 3, 2008
Author: defendersactionfund
Post Date: 2009-02-03 17:56:11 by FormerLurker
Keywords: Barbaric, Animal slaughter, Compassionate Conservatism, Sarah Palin
Views: 8786
Comments: 460
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 218.
#50. To: FormerLurker (#0)
Are you sure you aren't a former mental patient? Or maybe an escaped one?
Let's see; YOU - needless massacre of innocent creatures. Uh huh. So are you still slapping your mom around and killing puppies to pass the time? Or have you progressed to bigger and better things yet?
There are no innocent creatures. None. Herds have to be thinned out from time to time. I am sorry you do not appreciate this or comprehend why. Animals are not human, treating them as if they are is a mistake.
That's a convenient notion and self-righteous excuse if you plan on killing them.
How can I eat them if I don't kill them first? Eating them alive would be wrong.
Thing is, there are MANY other things to eat. I'm not a vegetarian, YET. But I do feel sorrow over those creatures who live miserable lives being raised in horrific conditions simply to serve as food, and those who die agonizing deaths for whatever reason.
i do too.
That's what I find extremely interesting in terms of the Essenes and their way of life, as it IS in harmony with Nature, and what a truly spiritual person would seek.
Please give us all YOUR definition of "a truly spiritual person" if you would.
One who has forsaken material desires and devoted him or herself to seeking communication with God through various techniques including prayer and meditation, as well as the rejection of any animal flesh for food.
Why would you include that when the Creator made us omnivors?
God didn't. In fact, we don't have the teeth to be natural meat eaters, we only acquired the taste for flesh over time. We were originally herbivores.
Your article is a bunch of bullshit.
Didn't catch this well thought out comment of yours. So you're saying the video is fake and people aren't shooting at wolves from aircraft, and that Sarah Palin doesn't support it?
No. I'm saying the article you linked about man not being omnivors is bullshit.
We have INCISORS for MEAT: P.S. coyotes have been known to get into watermelons but that doesn't mean they're evolving into cows.
Horses have INCISORS, are you saying they are meat eaters?
Horses have INCISORS, are you saying they are meat eaters? I can open a beer bottle with my teeth.
Hmmm. I wonder what sort of scientific name that would be, brewavore?
Monkeys don't eat meat, do they?
Most are true herbivores, and some are opportunistic omnivores. In other words, most only eat plants and nuts, but some eat bugs, snails, etc. when or if they can find them.
Monkeys don't eat meat, do they? Most are true herbivores, and some are opportunistic omnivores. In other words, most only eat plants and nuts, but some eat bugs, snails, etc. when or if they can find them. Fruitarian Evolution: Science Fact or Science Fiction? In contrast to the extensive fossil record evidence of meat in the evolutionary diet, there is virtually no credible scientific evidence of a strict fruitarian or veg*n diet by our prehistoric human (and australopithecine) ancestors. Much much more at the link.
Oh and BTW, that link you posted does NOT dispute any of the physiological evidence that I mentioned, it simply beats down straw men.
How about a pro-vegetarian site that makes the claim that humans are omnivores? Humans are Omnivores Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore- insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. Omnivorism The Great Apes Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). Again more at the link.
#222. To: farmfriend (#218)
This article was shamelessly published in the May/June 1991 edition of the Vegetarian Journal JM> There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. JM> One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater. JM> Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics. JM> Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. JM> Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat- eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms. JM> The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). JM> All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice. JM> There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. JM> The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. JM> Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates). JM> Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants. JM> In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations. JM> There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. JM> For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat- free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. This article was originally published in the May/June 1991 edition of the Vegetarian Journal, published by:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBarbaric, Animal slaughter, Compassionate Conservatism, Sarah Palin
#58. To: RickyJ (#50)
Are you sure you aren't a former mental patient? Or maybe an escaped one?
ME - against needless massacre of innocent creatures.
#61. To: FormerLurker (#58)
#63. To: RickyJ (#61)
There are no innocent creatures.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#63)
That's a convenient notion and self-righteous excuse if you plan on killing them.
#89. To: RickyJ (#76)
How can I eat them if I don't kill them first?
#93. To: FormerLurker (#89)
But I do feel sorrow over those creatures who live miserable lives being raised in horrific conditions simply to serve as food, and those who die agonizing deaths for whatever reason.
#117. To: christine (#93)
i do too.
#120. To: FormerLurker (#117)
what a truly spiritual person would seek.
#130. To: Rotara (#120)
Please give us all YOUR definition of "a truly spiritual person" if you would.
#132. To: FormerLurker, Rotara (#130)
as well as the rejection of any animal flesh for food.
#135. To: farmfriend (#132)
Why would you include that when the Creator made us omnivors?
#146. To: FormerLurker (#135)
God didn't. In fact, we don't have the teeth to be natural meat eaters, we only acquired the taste for flesh over time. We were originally herbivores.
#171. To: farmfriend (#146)
Your article is a bunch of bullshit.
#186. To: FormerLurker (#171)
Didn't catch this well thought out comment of yours. So you're saying the video is fake and people aren't shooting at wolves from aircraft, and that Sarah Palin doesn't support it?
#188. To: farmfriend, FormerLurker (#186)
#190. To: X-15 (#188)
We have INCISORS for MEAT
#192. To: FormerLurker, X-15, all (#190)
We have INCISORS for MEAT
#194. To: wudidiz (#192)
I can open a beer bottle with my teeth.
#195. To: FormerLurker (#194)
Hmmm. I wonder what sort of scientific name that would be, brewavore?
#198. To: wudidiz (#195)
Monkeys don't eat meat, do they?
#210. To: FormerLurker, wudidiz (#198)
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of the Homo genus. Humans appeared with the advent of a brand-new genus (Homo) ~2.5 million years ago. Humans evolved on the savanna-- a very different environment from the forest home of the great apes. From the very inception of our genus, humans have been eating animal foods. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this point. (Some of the evidence is discussed in this and the preceding section; also see Part 1 of the Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism interview series, available on this site, for additional information and citations.) The diet of some vague prehistoric frugivore that may or may not be an ancestor is irrelevant in light of the status of humans as a new genus with a different diet (i.e., eating more animal foods) and evolving in a different environmental niche.
#215. To: farmfriend (#210)
#218. To: FormerLurker (#215)
Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D. Introduction
There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.
Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.
The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.
There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.
Replies to Comment # 218. Humans are Omnivores
Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D. A rational critique of:
Humans are Omnivores
Adapted from a talk by vivisectionist John McArdle, Ph.D.Introduction
And, unfortunately, there are many more annoyingly-popular pseudo-scientific myths, masquerading as science, that humans are "omnivores"; those in this article will be refuted.
We will find that JM consistently fails to support his thesis with real science by erroneously substituting cultural practices for scientific facts and conclusions, the most common and fatal error of those falsely claiming than humans are "omnivores". Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Right, these 'classifications' are Linnaean nomenclature which is archaic, out-of-date, and based on insignificant, fragmentary fossilized data alleging to track the human lineage, which should be completely overhauled in light of modern genetic research. JM, a claimed "anatomist and primatologist" at the PhD level, should be aware of this critical fact, and the profound differences between Nature and culture, but we will see that he is not, much to his own embarrassment.
This is the crux of the matter: "you will see that taxonomy is more of an art than a science", "that there isn't even solid agreement on which species belong in which orders", "A little confusion is probably a good thing to learn to accept when it comes to classifying animals."
So, we see that this non-science and confusion dominate JM's faulty presentation, and it is a primary cause for his false conclusion that "Humans are Omnivores". In fact, search as you will, there is no taxonomical classification as "omnivore".
A little truth has leaked out. These 'classifications' are mere conveniences, not strictly defined in a reasonable, rigorous, scientific manner.Omnivorism
Notice, there is NO useful, meaningful, or even vaguely-scientific anatomical/physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore", and JM foolishly ignores the inescapable fact that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do! In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!
JM has made the all-to-common and fatal error in his totally unscientific and unsupportable claims by confusing Nature and culture; a grievous error which most grade school children would not make. Humans are clearly not natural "omnivores". Some are cultural "omnivores", and indeed must rely on cultural artifacts to raise, kill, butcher, cook, disguise with seasonings, cut up, and finally consume their animal prey. Again, the false definition rests on the phrase "capable of consuming"; however, humans have no natural capability to do so. If they did, they would. Thus, relying on an absurd false definition, JM inevitably and inescapably comes to a false conclusion.
Another insight into the falsity of this concept rests in the mistaken confusion, and proposed false-identity, of the verbs: to be, and to do. Being refers to our genetic code and its consequences, while doing is totally unrelated and a consequence of cultural programming.
Let's examine JM's muddled "thinking" a bit to see how completely absurd, and perhaps intentionally- misleading, the "capable" definition really is.
Humans are "capable" of flying through the air; that makes us birds or flying insects, right?
Humans are "capable" of traveling under water; that makes us fish or sea worms, right?
Humans are "capable" of tunneling through the earth; that makes us earthworms or moles, right?
Another unintentional admission that we are not natural omnivores; we have a choice; animals, however, do not have any choices, they rely on their genetically-programmed instincts to kill and eat animal prey. Humans have no instincts to do so, in spite of the foolish claims of various Instincto cults. Choices are cultural, not instinctual. How can someone with even a trivial education not understand the profound difference between culture and Nature?The Great Apes
Totally irrelevant, we are apes, not "mammals in general" nor random primates. Actually, we are Pongidae, only the horrendous human ego has chosen to elevate ourselves to another, exclusively ours, thus false classification. With a genetic difference of a mere ~1.6% from the chimp, our closest genetic relative, it should be obvious that our diet should be essentially that of the chimp. Clearly, the genetic distances from various, scientifically- indefinable natural "omnivores" would be much more, thus, again, refuting JM's unsupportable claim of "humans are omnivores".
Whoops - chimps are frugivorous, eating mostly fruit when available, and falling back on leaves when sufficient fruit is not, and JM is claimed to be a primatologist.
"Frequently" turns out to be a self-serving distortion, apparently for the sake of his pre-conceived and false conclusion, and for a "primatologist", it must be intentional. Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare, ~1.4% of their diet, not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need, and is clearly cultural, since flesh is used to gain sexual favors --humorously-similar to human dating.
Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record
JM> As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning.
More muddled "thinking". The "archeological record" so referenced is purely self- selecting, thus misleading, since that "evidence" is only produced by cultural processes, which include tool- marked bones and evidence of fire. The true frugivorous, natural, non- tool-using, human would leave NO evidence at all, since all food wastes would be composted into oblivion. Tools produce enduring evidence, raw-food eating humans do not; however, that certainly does not mean they did not exist. They exist today, and produce no long-term "archeological evidence" of their diet in the local ecosystems.
Whoops -- once culture is in play, its effects can not be used to assess the natural human. Anthro-apologists like to ignore this critical fact, thus reducing their verbal output to mere exercises in creative writing, certainly not real science.
JM> Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.
Totally irrelevant to humans. But, mindless insertion of irrelevancies that sound correct is a common ploy of anthro-apologists in order to created the illusion of scientific credibility.
JM> Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs
derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.
Again, factual but totally irrelevant to humans, or the "omnivore" issue; this applies to herbivores, not frugivorous humans.
JM> Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or
fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth. The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium
and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates
with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets.
Love that self- contradiction.
Yes, archaeology is confused and mistaken.
JM> Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
"Could"? Where is the evidence? Without evidence, "could" and "could not" are identical.
JM> Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.
More irrelevancies and errors to obfuscate the issue. The surface area of a cylinder IS linearly proportional to the length. We are "intermediate" between a carnivore and another carnivore, so what does that mean?
Conclusion (false)
JM> Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits.
This is a blatant lie. JM has presented no anatomical definition, or even an attempt to generate a rigorous, testable, anatomical definition of "omnivore"; this is not possible, since the anatomies of various natural omnivores is so diverse that no coherent patterns can be found.
The "vegetarian diet" is generally cooked, is centered on grains and beans, and may include dairy and eggs; this was not a discussion of a "vegetarian diet". Another irrelevant dodge and intentional obfuscation.
The "ethical" argument is totally bogus, since there is no objective set of ethics to which one can compare to determine what is more, or less, "ethical" than what. That is, individuals just make up their own ethical standards to suit their purposes of the moment. Hitler did what he did, based on his own personal set of ethics; so does JM.
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]
Clearly unqualified and hopelessly-confused on very fundamental facts and real science. And he has a PhD; that's frightening. Worse, look at some more of his hysterically-emotional nonsense.
The Vegetarian Resource Group, P.O. Box 1463, Dept. IN Baltimore, MD 21203 (410) 366-VEGE
Sad, really sad. And these people are supposed to be "vegetarian" authorities?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 218.