RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Secola/Nieft <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:38:52 -1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
arjen:
> I love it when people put words in my mouth!

These are your words:

> Interesting point! Let me give you a little statistic
> anthropologists have come up with. The average age at
> which humans die worldwide is now 65 years. One
> hundred years ago this was 27 years younger. Four and
> a half thousand years ago this was another 27 years
> younger. This means that the average age at 2500 year
> BC was eleven year!

You are speaking illogically above. Nevertheless, 2500 years ago is hardly
relevent to a discussion of human ancestral diet or longevity.

> First of
> all, I hope I don't have to explain the word
> "average":

Please do. We are all so dim as not to understand.

> I never said that 11 year olds did breed.

No. I did.

> Secondly: I just gave you 2 points in time for which
> the AVERAGE age at death was calculated. One was one
> hundred years ago and the other was 4500 years ago. I
> never said anything about it being a linear
> relationship (and, by the way, it is not even linear!)

Who calculated these if you didn't? Certainly no serious anthropologist.

> I don't think I have ever said that I don't want to
> argue, but I know that I have said that I love
> discussing evolution.

You said:

> I just want to start a
> discussion about this subject

If discussion is equal to argument, OK.

> But anyway, here it starts
> again: insults!

I am insulting your reasoning.

> Another person who feels too
> threatened by my reasoning and needs to protect his
> ideology with insults and putting words in my mouth I
> have never even said. What about my first 4 points in
> my reaction to Stefan? You conveniently ignore those!

If one of your arguments is so utterly absurd, why should anyone bother to
go point by point with you? You seem to fantasize that anyone who finds your
arguments flawed is threatened. Why is that?

> So even if I would be wrong in one argument (which so
> far hasn't been shown to be the case), there are still
> 4 other arguments left!

Perhaps you can argue with yourself?

Cheers,
Kirt

ATOM RSS1 RSS2