At least you admit that you had absolutely no point at all and were clearly wrong in your earlier assertion.
Almost a vegetarian!
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
- Status
At least you admit that you had absolutely no point at all and were clearly wrong in your earlier assertion.
This is another ridiculous argument.
If you eat meat that is properly prepared for eating then it is perfectly safe. The same can't actually be said for vegetables, as 53 sadly people found out in Germany.
The general rule when you travel to foreign countries with questionable food hygiene is to eat the grilled meats and avoid salads, raw vegetable dishes land fruit you don't peel.
Do I?
53 people died from eating cucumbers contaminated with poo. The "general rule" you speak of is such to avoid *contaminated* food product. Ya know, from people who don't wash their hands nor the surfaces they use to prepare the food.
What on earth is your point about properly prepared meat?
edit: To clarify on the poo: It was the poo that killed them, not the veg. Hence my quip about ricin contaminated potatoes. It's not the potato that kills you, it's the ricin.
Last edited:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I was overly generous.
Upset about what? That your posts are completely useless? No, I don't care about such trivialities.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,799
I don't seek them. I'm merely challenging your assertions.
I have many anecdotes.
You got anything at all to back up all these claims about historical diets that people with lots of letters after their names have already refuted?
You can get sick from eating bad food, regardless of whether it's meat or veg.
However, you say otherwise, so I suggest you prove it - I'll find you some rotting veg, you eat it and we'll see how well you fare, eh?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,298
- Location
- Manchester
Let's keep calm everyone.
I lived on Huel and water for a week. It's fine, but I was craving solid food. Not because I was hungry or felt bad (quite the opposite) but for psychological reasons.
Even the person who invented it treats it as a supplement of sorts - he has Huel for breakfast and lunch and normal food for dinner.
If they did Huel bars (i.e. solid food) as well I'd be happy to live on Huel and water alone.
In case anyone is wondering, Huel is 100% plants. So there is that if anyone wants an easy fully vegetarian diet. Balanced meal every time, everything you need of everything in good proportions. It's not very expensive, either, and you can flavour it with anything because it's just powdered food.
How could there be evidence of that? The amounts would be trace. A few micrograms of B12 per day is enough and some animal's dung contains a relatively large amount of B12. I doubt if you'd need to eat more than a couple of grammes a day, if that. No way would that show up in fossils. Such a small amount could occur by contamination of food or water (most likely water).
It's a moot point, since there's no doubt ancient humans ate meat. They had to in order to survive, B12 or not.
I do appreciate the biology of it all
Here's a succinct summary:
You ever get the runs from eating bad veg? No, because we are better adapted to veg diet and thus better capable of dealing with the bacteria that comes on (bad) veg.
Are you likely to get the runs from eating bad (or sometimes even just raw!) meat? Yes, because meat in our diet is still (relatively!) new, and so is the bacteria found on it.
.... amazing logic.
Soooo how about water?
Massive source of infection pretty ****ing sure water isn't new in your diet or that you aren't addapted to water consumption
Last edited:
In the context of what humans are physically adapted for, of course I do.
Would you argue that humans are physically adapted to fly because aeroplanes exist? If not, why not? It's the same argument you're making - that the existence of technology to do something means that humans are physically adapted to doing that thing.
Thats what i do huel for the 2 small breaks pot of decent food for main break and a meal at home.
Gonna try and make huel flapjacks. But its gonna be difficult to not hugley skew the balance.
Thinking it might be a case of finding an artifical binding agent instea dof honey and butter
I was going to reply to your earlier post, but I see that other posters have already debunked it.
I'll just add this point:
Many plants are poisonous to humans. A very large proportion of them. That's not true for properly adpated herbivores, which can eat plants that are poisonous to humans.
Applying your line of argument, the fact that a goat can eat plants that would poison a human is proof that humans are naturally adapted to be carnivores. Although unlike your "dogs can't get ill from eating bad meat" statement, the statement that goats can eat plants that would poison a human is true.
Applying my line of argument, the fact that most if not all herbivores can eat and digest plants that are poisonous or indigestible to humans is proof that humans are not as well adapted to eating plants as a herbivore is, because humans are adapted to being omnivores. As in so many things, humans are generalists rather than specialists.
Also, just as an aside, a large part of the reason why dogs rarely get ill from eating bad meat is that their extraordinary sense of smell means that they are extremely well adapted to detecting bad meat and thus at avoiding eating it. But it does happen.
Strong username to post content.
Last edited by a moderator:
I always find fascinating how vegetarians/vegans think their choices are more ethical. Just because your food doesn't scream or bleed when you kill it, it does not mean it's not alive. Just because you can't associate yourself with it as a living entity somehow makes it ok to destroy it.
It's either ok to kill living organisms of any shape/form to keep you alive, or it isn't. You don't get to play the moral card because _you_ can't empathise. It's the same concept of eating e.g. dogs vs. cows, just at a deeper level.
If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.
Not eating meat is not a moral option at all. Environmentally friendly perhaps, but that's all there is to it.
It's either ok to kill living organisms of any shape/form to keep you alive, or it isn't. You don't get to play the moral card because _you_ can't empathise. It's the same concept of eating e.g. dogs vs. cows, just at a deeper level.
If that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.
Not eating meat is not a moral option at all. Environmentally friendly perhaps, but that's all there is to it.
Human's digestive system is better at veg than meat. That's it. There's no absolutes. There's no point talking about poisonous plants when I've only ever compared eating bad veg to bad meat.
As for "debunked" .. ha, hardly.
Off to have a pork and beef burrito :E
You're talking in absolutes (and do it again in the very next post), confidently expressing your beliefs and interpretations of selected parts of the picture as absolute fact and the whole picture.
Humans can't even survive in the wild as herbivores. To say that we're natural herbivores is nonsense. We can apply modern technology to make ourselves able to thrive as almost total herbivores today (there's that pesky B12 thing), but that doesn't mean we're physically adapted to being herbivores. To say so is no logic at all.
We can apply modern technology to make ourselves able to fly - does that mean we're physically adapted to flying?
We can apply modern technology to make ourselves able to breathe underwater - does that mean we're physically adapted to living underwater?
- Status