> Secola/Nieft:
> "Perhaps you should post a reference for such a
> statement (as is found on beyondveg) and there will be
> something to talk about. 2500 years is hardly
> prehistoric."
arjen:
> I have that information from an article in a science
> magazine. Since I am only reading to expand my
> knowledge, I don't keep a list of all my references:
> the information is mostly stored in my head and in a
> notebook I use for that purpose. I could come up with
> the exact reference, but that will take a substantial
> amount of effort. However, I am sure that when you dig
> into the literature you will find that prehistoric
> humans did not have a very long lifespan.
I am well aware of the liturature on paleo and prehistoric lifespans, which
is why I find your 11 year old average contention so so silly. If I had a
nickel for everytime someone says they don't actually have a reference for
something they present as evidence I'd have a lot of nickels.
> As I explained before, my biggest
> problem with Beyond Veg is that they present
> speculations and bring them as fact.
I seriously wonder how carefully you have looked at the site, since the
brunt of the info is refuting "speculations" that raw vegans continue to
present as facts. What is the ideal diet? Beyondveg has not much to say
about that last time I checked, except that it is a helluva lot more
complicated than the arjens of the world would like to believe. Indeed, the
basic premise of beyondveg is to present referenced arguments that refute
speculations about your idea of an ideal diet. You can pose some language
reversing reality (that BV is boasting facts, when it is boasting
references, that BV is passing off speculations as fact) but if you could
see clearly, you might come to the conclusion that it is _you_ that are
guilty of this sorry tendency seen so often in the raw vegan crowd.
> When anyone comes
> up with different references that proof the opposite
> or with a different logical explanation, they ignore
> you or insult you.
Why should anyone bother with a person who believes such a silly thing as
you do about what is biologically appropriate diet for humans? Your entire
line of "reasoning" is refuted repeatedly on beyondveg, but you fancy your
persistent ignorance as some sort of reasonable foray into intellectual
endeavor. Even reason cannot refute unreason, or so they say. Did you say
"references"? Bring em on, mon, bring em on! Please show me the references
supporting raw veganism especially.
> I communicated with Beyond Veg
> before and presented them with different information.
Perhaps you can post the references you claim to have supplied? I thought
not. :/
> They first ignored me and then Tom came with the most
> insulting language that has ever been expressed to me.
Yeah, right.
I thought I was insulting you. Must be hard to be so right and then everyone
is mean to you, eh?
> He didn't remark to any of my objections to Beyond Veg
> and when I finally got him to respond to something, he
> came with an argument that can easily be refuted (see
> my original post).
You aparently feel pretty proud of your "original post" like it was some
great document of intellect or something. Maybe you do need a point by point
response...
> More basic errors in logic and
> philosophy of Beyond Veg can be found on:
> www.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm.
You're welcome to such whinings if that is your level of logic. Is this
where you find your "references" as well?
> However, even though I don't like Beyond Veg, I still
> think some of their information is valid. Here is a
> quote from me to a reply to Anwar, referring to the
> Pottenger's cats: "As much as I dislike Beyond Veg,
> some of the information is pretty right on."
How could it possibly be if it is so terribly slanted? But I am very
curious: what information on BV do you find "right on"?
> People can
> judge for themselves how valid your counter argument
> is.
They do.
> By the way, the only one who was crying foul was
> you, by saying that my statement is "absurd" and
> "illogical".
And I'll say it again. Your statement is absurd and illogical.
If your statement _is_ absurd and illogical, then I am not crying foul, am
I?
> Secola/Nieft:
> "I have no ideologies to shatter. You do."
>
> Since when is being a raw food vegan more of an
> ideology than being a RAF eater?
So I eat particular foods and that means I have an ideology because of it?
That is absurd and illogical. Raw vegans appear to need an ideology since
the diet has no basis in human biology and they need to feel special if not
entirely superior, in my experience.
> Like I said before, I love discussing evolution and
> receiving valid counter arguments, but I don't buy
> anything for insults and people putting words into my
> mouth.
Feeling insulted is your problem. Dismissing a counter by claiming I put
words in your mouth is convenient for you. I say your linear calculations
are absurd, give you an extended example of its fallacy, show that even if
your numbers were valid they have nothing to do with paleolithic diet ideas,
and you get all huffy, say you read it in a science magazine somewhere. You
appear incapable of discussing your contentions.
> Secola/Nieft:
> "You have yet to say, "hey, yeah, I was not thinking
> clearly about that" to any of the counters provided by
> several posters."
>
> I have said a couple of times that people had a good
> or interesting remark, but even in these cases I was
> always able to come with reasonable arguments to
> defend my point of view.
Exactly. Every point made by the posters is either dismissed (as you have
dismissed mine, Jo's and Stefan's among others) or you fantsize that you
have countered the points with "reasonable arguments". You don't appear open
to reconsideration at all IMO. You appear to enjoy your fantasy that you
have ruffled people's feathers with your concise rebuttals (gag) to
beyondveg, when the feathers you have ruffled are more a dissatisfaction of
your reasoning abilities.
> People can judge for
> themselves by reading all my posts.
They do.
> Really, I am
> waiting for the time I can say "hey, yeah, I was not
> thinking clearly about that", because I love to find
> the weak spots in my theory. PLEASE point them out to
> me!
Saying that the average lifespan 2500 years ago was 11 years old is weak.
Because 1] it has nothing to do with RAF or paleodiet yet you use the idea
to conclude that paleodiets including RAF must be bad because of your
"statistic", and 2] because you have no reference for the linear or specific
contention anyway, regardless that it is quite irrelevant.
Your contention that a raw vegan diet (with some occasional invertabrates or
something like that ;)) is biologically appropriate for humans is weak. It
ignores the findings of the anthropology of human diet, comparative anatomy
(regardless of how you want to perseverate on a couple teeth--how are your
teeth doing BTW?) common sense, many examples of raw vegan children and
adults with serious health problems, and current nutritional research, among
other arenas of human knowledge.
> Now tell me Kirt, how many times do you want me to
> repeat myself?!
What you repeat has nothing to do with the counter-arguments presented. You
continue to say how open you are (and how you feel insulted) instead of
looking at what is being said.
> Did you ever notice the title of my
> post: "Evolution: THOUGHTS about Beyond Veg and raw
> meat"? Did I say: "Evolution: THE TRUTH about Beyond
> Veg and Raw meat"? I am always open to discussing my
> philosophies when people come with reasonable
> arguments.
Start with the above.
FWIW, I don't give a rat's ass about your "philosophies". What I can't stand
is your ignorance which you cover with your pseudo-intellectual posturing,
and your inability to follow any line of thought which runs counter to your
_beginning_belief_ in the Easter Bunny of raw veganism. You seem less
interested in reasonable arguments than in a chance to soapbox your
ignorance about such matters. Perhaps this helps you to solidify your belief
in something which has no reasonable or scientific support. But there is no
law that says I have to watch you silently...
Cheers,
Kirt
|
