Veganism/Vegetarianism

Post Reply New Topic

Look around you. It obviously doesn't render opposite genders incapable of mingling. Vasopressin is still a superior explanation for gender segregation than chance invention. I'm not sure what other explanations you are intent on proposing, but I think I've proposed the strongest hypothesis so far.

And please, if you have gotten me confused with proponents of heteronormaticity, shove off. I'm a fem gay vamp, and I'm not even certain of my gender identity. I'm the only intellectual you have met who is more interested in the shape of his ass than his IQ. You are throwing off your ridiculous female insecurities on the wrong cat.

The aspect of my thought processes you don't seem to be comprehending is that I am strongly against the idea that a behavior is "right" just because it appears in nature or has a naturalistic explanation. That concept of morality is bankrupt nonsense.

It's a basic effect of testosterone, which is present in men and women.

http://research.yerkes.emory.edu/Young/ ... %20BBR.pdf

That took me ten seconds with Google, which you probably could have done in five.

I never studied psychoanalytic method, so I wouldn't know. I tend to go by actual scientific journals. Courtship behavior actually is related to competitive sport, but the reason behind the relationship is a lot simpler than any Freudian bullcrap. It's not very efficient for us to develop new behaviors, from out of a void. If it takes less time to adapt a new manifestation into an existing trait, this is the most probably course of evolution.

That could be an onset to an interesting discussion on the nature of predatory behavior. Isn't it interesting that the pounces used by many predators resemble mounting behavior? How distant is the killing bite of a predator from a lover's embrace?

That's what most people say when they have totally failed to comprehend another person's idea. That's your problem, not mine.

I think you were just being presumptuous.

Please, don't try being condescending. You are above that kind of behavior, and you are not good at it.

It's been a few centuries, and you are still a lot less likely to come down with an illness if you wash your hands and cook your food thoroughly.

I'm not framing it as anything. I'm engaging in absolutely casual speculation. I just happen to be well informed.

It doesn't extinguish the causes of the behavior, though. The basic drive is just transformed into a different expression or at most suppressed.

"Western"? You never actually read the Analects, did you? Confucian ethics are as misogynist as you can possibly get.

You really want to believe that misogyny is entirely cultural, but it's feminist wishful thinking. Thankfully, the traits that are behind it can be shaped differently.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 08 Mar 2012, 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Using that logic, eating anything but fruit is unnatural. After all, grains make seeds for the next generation of grains, not for humans to eat. Carrots, parsnips etc. make roots to nourish the plant, not for us to eat. Etc. etc. etc. There is precious little on this planet that is actually made to be consumed by a different species. I think fruit is pretty much it.

No, I'm not a fruitarian. And I think fruitarians are ridiculous because not only do they give themselves dietary deficiencies, but they also almost never poop in a field and leave the fruit seeds out there, naturally fertilized. So even fruitarians aren't doing what the plants intended. So I seriously doubt any humans eat things in the way those things intended. And that's perfectly natural.

Actually, I'm out of this conversation. I've run into one person here who seems to think that, just because I don't buy the idea that our ancestors were cold, calculating monstrosities, that must mean that have some ret*d vegan care bear outlook on the issue. Now I've run into another person who seems to think that, just because I don't buy the idea that all "Western" ideas about gender are entirely cultural, I must be one of those people who think that everyone in the world is obligated to abide by "Western" concepts of heteronormativity (or whatever ret*d term they are using for it now).

The only thing I've been driving at is a simple idea that we can comprehend our behavior in terms of a sophisticated gestalt of interplay between hard-wired drives and shaping of the expression of those drives throughout development. I thought that this would make it very clear that our ancestral diet could have taken on many different forms, including one that was very high in animal protein. It is this very plasticity that makes us adaptable to many different lifestyles, and it's perfectly feasible to have this plasticity without the antiquated (and rather daft) assumption that we are born as a formless tabula rasa. In this case, we can comprehend the human species that it is magnificent for its adaptability, and we don't need to assume that we ought to practice some specific dietary scheme to be "healthy." Furthermore, if we evaluate humans as we would any other animal, we ought to appreciate the success of human beings as an super apex predator. If we see humans as a beautiful and amazing beast, it is hard not to love and appreciate them.

But I'm going to leave it at that because I'm obviously not getting through to some people. I've got one person here who thinks I have some naive Disney World concept of human natural history, and now I have another one who thinks I'm not far removed from a stereotypical Judeo-Christian misogynist and thinks I'm cribbing my ideas from some two-bit scholar or something. If I wanted to be insulted and degraded, I'd join an S&M club. Cya.

I was working on an in-depth response yesterday evening and had to abandon it due to work constraints; if you're really ditching, I won't bother to resurrect the attempt.
What I will say is: no, contrary to your portrayal, I do not believe that culture is responsible for all human behavior; yes, I do believe that you are not allowing enough play for culture in your hypotheses. I don't think that you have enough evidence to back your hypotheses, and the fact that they 'make sense to you' based on what you know of the actions of a few hormones isn't enough to support them in a scientific discussion.
Evo-psych, as a field, is riddled with that kind of argument.

Did I bring up cow milk? At all? I'm confused.

Also, milk doesn't do anything to me... seems perfectly natural for me to chug some down...

i don't know anymore. i wish people knew more about the dairy industry but i guess i am alone here on that? i just wanted to talk about being a vegan and vegan things.

i was done with this after my last post. but i got a reply notification again so i came back and now somebody's calling me "ret*d" ...?

i guess i'm in the wrong place =/

You do that? I'm scared I'll end up looking at a woman's breasts for too long, now.

I'll have to stick to looking at their shoes (eyes are too hard for me).

The context is a martial arts dojo.
You're not supposed to look at people's eyes, either; you keep kind of a diffuse look at them and all around you as well, because they (the person playing the attacker) might not be alone.
edit: I've been popped in the face, too, more than once - not for staring at anyone's breasts, but because I wasn't paying enough here-and-now-attention to the fact that I was working with someone who would hit me if I didn't move appropriately. It's not just focusing too much on breasts, but also daydreaming, anticipating the opponent's moves too much, etc.

Yeah, eating meat also results in physical sickness if you haven't eaten it for a couple of years. It's fascinating. ^^


There is a reason why the appendix is only a remnant of our ancestors. It was originally designed to digest bones.

Whoops, I wrote designed. Um... I meant it used to digest bones. We don't need it anymore. By nature.

I have read books and articles by vegetarians and even vegans who went back to eating meat. None of them reported physical sickness. To the contrary, they reported that sickness they were suffering went away (they went back to meat because of dietary deficiencies). Here's a sample:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... etter.html

This guy, like so many other ex-vegans/ex vegetarians stopped being sick once he ate meat.


[/quote]

It is part of our immune system

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ction-of-t

It is also a repository of bacteria to re-colonize our intestines after intestinal illness.

It isn't just ancient man who digested bones. I digested bones today at lunch via salmon with the bones still in. You can buy it skinless and boneless but I never do. I just also eat the skin and bones. Presumably I digest them (although I've never literally checked) but not with my appendix.

The idea that the appendix is 'part of the immune system' is specious, mainly promoted by creationists who want to deny the existence of vestigiality. Yes, it has lots of lymphoid tissue... so does the rest of the GI tract. The term is GALT, or 'gut-associated lymphoid tissue,' not AALT, or appendix-associated lymphoid tissue. Occasionally someone is born without an appendix, and they do just as well as (or better than) someone who has an appendix.

Try saying that to someone like me? For twenty years of my life I suffered from eczema and psoraisis. It began to get worse and worse and more painful. When I was twenty-one I decided to go vegan and all my eczema and psoriasis went away completely, never had a break out. Had been vegan for a whole two years. This year I tried a more vegetarian diet bringing animal back into my diet and I began to break out again. I also disagree with the soy claim. Since I was a child I was lactose intolerant and have had soy milk my whole entire life with no problems.

Everyone is different when it comes to what they can and cannot eat. I have to actually start going back vegan because of my out breaks. I'll never be able to eat animal products again, most likely.

People confuse vestigial with useless. An organ may have some sort of use and still be vestigial.

This does not represent my beliefs, but I found a relevant meme:

For every animal you don't eat, I'm eating 3. Vegetarianism is one of those things that only makes sense in a state of abundance of food. Somehow I have a feeling that if a vegetarian had been starving for a few days, they'd devour a T-bone like a T-rex.

Actually, from an energy point of view, vegetarianism makes far more sense in any situation so long as you have to farm your animals. You can get far more energy from eating all of the stuff you'd feed a cow than from eating the cow. Of course, you'd have to find another source of protein, but there are things like soy and legumes.