fred patenaude <[log in to unmask]>:
>Chimps are eating meat. SO? They eat bugs and dirt and their own feces
>too. That just prove that chimps are really degenerated.

Tom:
Actually, it proves that you suffer from the same delusion as your
friends: you think that nature must conform to the false dogma you have
been taught. Nature does not care about dogma. Who knows more about
the diet of chimps? The chimps themselves, or a bunch of fanatical,
hostile, plagiarists? :-)

fred patenaude <[log in to unmask]>:
>I know, however, that
>mountain gorillas are total vegans. This is proven by the research done
>by George Schaller, in his book, "The year of the gorilla".

Tom:
Incorrect information. An updated excerpt from a post I made last year
on raw-food and veg-raw, follows: in the below, M=myth, R=reality. Note the
peer-reviewed reference below.

SOME ESSENTIAL ADVICE FOR PEOPLE NEW TO RAW FOODS
PART 2: SELECTED MYTHS OF RAW FOODS
...snipped...

M: But mountain gorillas are vegans!

R: Not really; they have been observed deliberately eating driver ants,
and they also consume considerable insects on the leaves that are the
major part of their diet. Given that many vegans reject honey, avoid
foods colored with cochineal (a dye made of ground insects), and get all
grossed out by descriptions of humans consuming insects (common in many
hunter-gatherer societies), it is reasonable to say that an ape that
deliberately eats ants is NOT a vegan, even if ants are a small part of
their diet.

Reference:

Watts, D P.
      Ant eating behavior of mountain gorillas.
      Primates, v.30, n.1, (1989): 121-126.

M: The apes that eat meat are perverted.

R: Perversion is a human concept; nature simply IS, and wild animal
behavior simply IS. We can accept reality, or live in denial of it.
So, I would say that apes eating insects or meat, are simply following
their instincts. What is perverted here, in my opinion, is the obvious
denial of reality practiced by certain fruitarians (but the apes are
NOT perverted).

M: The apes that eat meat are acting "in error"; it is a mistake.

R: Applying human pre-conceptions to evaluate the actions of animals can
be a tricky matter. There are many things in nature that one might consider
an error. What criteria makes an action by an animal an error? The only
readily apparent criteria is the primal urge of animals: survival. That is,
an action that interferes with survival of the subject animal, is an error.
In this light, we see that when an animal accidentally dies, say, in mating,
it may be an error.  However, apes eating insects, bird's eggs, or animal
flesh, are simply eating food - without which, they might not survive. Hence,
apes eating animal foods are not acting in error.

...snipped...

fred:
>Humans are
>totally revolted by the idea of killing another animal, besides the fact
>that they can't do it without tools.

Tom:
Finding the killing of animals to be offensive is a cultural bias, not
a "natural" bias. As a vegetarian, it does not appeal to me. However,
it is common in hunter-gatherer societies, and you cannot deny that
hunting is popular in the US, Canada, and many other countries. Many
people do not share your revulsion at the thought of killing animals.
I am not defending the practice, merely telling the truth.

As for tools, chimpanzees kill animals without tools (e.g., juvenile
animals). If chimps can do it, so can humans (if they want). Besides,
one of the things that makes us human is our extensive tool use, and
larger brains. (P.S. many animal foods can be easily collected by
the mythical "naked apes, without tools": bird eggs and chicks,
many kinds of insects, some types of fishes, crustaceans, and even
small clams, juvenile animals, and the list goes on...)

fred:
>But what I'm saying is
>that there's a need for a book like NFL.

Tom:
If there is a need (very debatable), why not re-issue the book "Raw
Eating" and promote it honestly? As it is, your friends have lost
all credibility; they are seen as fakes and "flakes".

Tom Billings