Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:34:07 +0300 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
- > I think the point was that kangaroos have a ratio of fat to
> protein that would require most of the kangaroo meat to be left
> uneaten unless supplemented with significant amounts of energy
> from other sources.
That discussion was an example of Amadeus' style of
argument. He stated there must be the bones of several trillion kangaroos
lying around. He went from my statement that aborigines could have lived
entirely on kangaroo for a substantial length of time [as opposed to
tubers]
to the conclusion that all aborigines over 40,000 years ate only kangaroo
and
nothing else. This is not a logical kind of argument.
> Your eventual response was "Howevr, i will
> resile from my statement that kangaroo is an ideal paelo food. i
> would imagine emu and goanna would be better."
Yes, as the fat content in goanna or emu could keep 3 or 4 people going as
opposed to probably only one with kangaroo. its interesting that i appear
to be able to change my views in the light of new evidence.
Amadeus, despite his intelligence, appears to engage in several kinds of
'sleights of hands':
He makes factually wrong and refuses to acknowedge this when others point
out the
truth [eg the so-called rarity of shellfish and difficulty of fishing]
he invents ridiculous 'arguments' that his opponents supposedly made
[kangaroo
killing fields] and then applies reductio ad absurdo.
he uses irrelevant points to sound convincing [the shortage of omega 3s in
modern meats. Has he heard of flax to supplement the very small daily
requirements of EFAs? (which were formerly known simply as Vit F before the
need for commercialisation)].
he uses figures which sound impressive but on closer analysis prove
nothing. [Eg lean meat at 1-3% fat is a bad source of fat. At this rate
any
medium sized animal will still provide daily fat requirements, let alone
the
contribution from marrow etc].
When confronted he will say he expressing his personal view or personal
choice only. His motivation is clearly not this, however.
> In fact, the whole question of racial or ethnic metabolic
> differences is one that is potentially very important, but we
> have little information.
My guess is that different races/tribes may have different profile of liver
enzymes which entail diferent dietary requirements. One example i can give
is that 8% of Caucasians are deficient in certain liver enzymes which
metabolize plant compounds called phenols. These people simply have
trouble eating a wide variety of plant foods, anything with high amounts of
salicylates or bright colours. For these people the English diet of roast
beef and cabbage is about as best it comes. Now, what would be interesting
is to see if these 8% have some sort of remote genetic connection to a part
of Europe or something. A ceratin percentage of Asian and negro peoples
also have this problem.
> Yes. I thought you were making some point about Paavo Airola
> having died in his early 60s. Were you? Also, what is your
> evidence for lunacy in Kellogg or Shaw?
I was just giivng you a free hit, to demonstrate the kind of argumentation
that Amadues engages in. For any lunatic vegetarian I could use an example
anyone could of course turn up a lunatic meat eater.
For what its worth, I do believe there is a link between vegetarian diets
and fanaticism [ie the first causes the second] in people who shuld be
eating substantial amounts of meat. I'm not so dishonest as to think it
can be proven though - unless someone did some huge study.
Shaw - an apologist for Lenin, one of history's geatest mass murderers
Kellog - thought the agony of circumcision on infant babies was helpful to
their moral development. That all illness came from bowel intoxication.
Andrew
|
|
|