Gaining weight on a vegetarian diet and funky gis, (not necessarily related).

[Tonuzaba]

OK, what the ****? Why am I an anti-semite?

Hey, we're supposed to say that to anyone that disagrees with us (or threatens to eat us and our family), aren't we? :icon_sunn

[EmetShamash]

sigh...

[Ajamil]

I guess you didn't read the bulk of this thread (or all the ones that came before it).

Heh, no I did, and sorry for the unintentional trolling. It's just such a fun argument that I fall into it so easily. Other than ethics I'm with ya.

[Teh El Macho]

I don't think any animal could survive without the digestive processes of the bacteria in their stomachs and intestines - are carnivores any different then?

Yep, they don't need to turn methods such as regurgitation, coprophagia, or develop extremely long and/or multi-chambered stomachs to deal with the digestion of coarse vegetable matter, nor develop molars that resemble bricks.

The argument... actually, not argument, but the fact is that although all complex animals use bacteria in their digestive system, carnivores do not require bacteria or digestive systems that can handle cellulose. Carnivores use different approaches: digestive acids. One good example is a croc or a constrictor.

By the same token, obligate herbivores do not need to develop carnassials, canines or massive incissors for shearing meat.

I know humans need bacteria to properly digest.

To digest cellulose?

Also, while i don't disagree with you on any point so far, i don't see why the choices and adaptations of the past should influence (nevermind that, influence certainly, but limit or restrict) the choices made today.

Just as you don't see a reason why our EXISTING biological capabilites (.ie. the ability to eat mat) should dictate the choices you make today, I don't see why they should not. And that's a difference in conscience. That's a matter of faith and ethics.

Faith|conscience|ethics|42 =/= biological adaptation.

As it's been said (10+1)! times, a matter of conscience is not a problem nor an issue to be discussed in the PT forums. The problem is trying to use pseudo-science to justify this matter of conscience by thwarting and misrepresenting the physical characteristics that we posses as members of the Homo genus, as primates, as eutherian mammals, as animals as well as make us (or our evolutionary ancestors similar or different from other animals past or present.

We developed the ability to choose not to naturally as well, why knock it as unnatural to leave off meat-eating as a habit of the past - to be done away with like superstition in the face of repeateable evidence?

Nobody has done so. To choose is to be human, but to pretend that the ability to choose vegetarianism is scientific proof that we cannot ingest meat or that meat never had any role in the evolution of not just our species but on the entire Homo genus, or worse, to equate vegetarianism with herbivory and conscience with biological adaption, that's just stupid.

But since stupidity is a human quality, I guess that's human too.

[Ajamil]

To digest cellulose?

Not certain, lemme find the info.

Bacteriology[/url]]Bacterial species living inside a human being are found in the gastrointestinal (GI), or digestive, tract. There are actually more bacteria in the large intestine alone, than there are cells in the human body. From the mouth to the anus, these tiny life forms aid in breaking down and digesting food, converting nutrients and dietary fiber for absorption, synthesizing vitamins, and degrading toxins. They also aid the immune system to develop vigorous responses. More than half of the body’s immune tissue is located in the lining of the small intestines, called Peyer’s Patches. All of the bacteria in the GI tract are expelled and renewed daily.

Aid, not needed, no mention of cellulose, trying again.

Here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mole00129.htm

[Skillful]

Arjuna, we don't digest cellulose. Stop looking. He's asking you rhetorically.

[Teh El Macho]

Not certain, lemme find the info.


Aid, not needed, no mention of cellulose, trying again.

Here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mole00129.htm

Quoted from that last .gov link:

Trudy Wassenaar
================================================== =======
Actually humans don't contain the bacteria necessary to digest cellulose.
Cows and other ruminants do and therefore they can digest cellulose.
Interestingly, termites aren't able to digest cellulose either. They have a
symbiotic relationship with a bacterium that lives in their guts. The
bacteria get a source of food, and they break down the cellulose into
something that the termites can digest.

[colonelpong2]

Fried chicken, good Colonel.
FRIED.
Wouldn't want any of the ***** broiled chicken find its way onto your plate.

COLONel. LOL

Hey! I dont need chicken to get fat! I can do that on a vegetarian diet just as well!

[patfromlogan]

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs sparingly or not at all: 3.6 X's

Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher

[Teh El Macho]

^^^ Are those statements, paragraphs, quotes? What exactly? Sources?

Not that I'm questioning the veracity of it, but for ****'s fucking sake man, this thread is so fucking long, and all of you guys have been here in this website and forum for fucking long enough to know better that this forum is not freaking AOL teen chat service.