Anti Whale Terrorist Boat Gets Rammed

[billvon 3,116]

>One doesn't wash the other since humans usualy have immediate control
>over other species.

So do many carnivores whose prey is essentially helpless.

>Point is, homo sapien was designed to predate on vegetation only.

No, we're not. We started that way but we've slowly been adapting to an omnivorous diet. If you tried to eat only vegetation you would become very sick from B12 deficiency, since we've lost the ability to synthesize that.

(Sure, you can take vitamins, but that's not "designed to eat vegetation.")

On the other hand, our adaptations to being omnivorous did not get very far along before we stopped evolving, which is why we do best with a 90% vegetarian diet. That whole food-pyramid thing.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Point is, homo sapien was designed to predate on vegetation only.

Prove your claim. Dentition equals diet - herbivores don't have bicuspids.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Dentition equals diet - herbivores don't have bicuspids.

Actually they do. Bicuspids and molars are the grinding teeth and do most of the work for herbivores. Did you mean canines?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Dentition equals diet - herbivores don't have bicuspids.

Actually they do. Bicuspids and molars are the grinding teeth and do most of the work for herbivores. Did you mean canines?

Human physiology arguments are so tired, can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position. Every aspect of human physiology points to herbivoire.

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[billvon 3,116]

>can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position.

Just to be clear - who is "the other side?"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

When you then include the digestion from the physical breaking down of the flesh/meat to the chemical breaking down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva, humans break down starches, not meats. Not to mention our narrow throats vs carnivores larger ones.

Here's an entire list of reasons we are not designed carnivoires: http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat

Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater


Chemically, we are not designed to eat meat, so just because we have canines to fight with, that doesn't mean we then eat that meat.

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)


Try again.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position.

Just to be clear - who is "the other side?"

People who believe that humans are designed by nature (or Jebus if you're so inclined to buy into mythology) to eat meat are the other side.

[billvon 3,116]

>People who believe that humans are designed by nature (or Jebus if
>you're so inclined to buy into mythology) to eat meat are the other side.

We're designed for both nowadays. We're poorly adapted to eat meat, but we'd die if we tried to subsist purely on plants. To be more accurate, we're very poorly adapted to eat raw meat as carnivores do, but have some adaptations that allow us to eat carrion and/or cooked meat. A guy with a knife, fork and cooked steak really doesn't bear much relationship to how a carnivore eats.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

>Dentition equals diet - herbivores don't have bicuspids.

Actually they do. Bicuspids and molars are the grinding teeth and do most of the work for herbivores. Did you mean canines?

Human physiology arguments are so tired, can't understand why the other side isn't willing to retreat from that weak position. Every aspect of human physiology points to herbivoire.

wait... so are physiology arguments tired ore aren't they? Only not tired when you use them?

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

Human physiology arguments are so tired.


My argument is that I like meat. It tastes good.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We're designed for both nowadays.

No, we were designed to be herbivoires, we've adapted to be omnivoires.

Quote

We're poorly adapted to eat meat, but we'd die if we tried to subsist purely on plants.

Then explain how vegans exist for decades. Explain how I've existed w/o meat since 1987. BTW, I'm no anaemic, I'm 235 lbs.

Quote

To be more accurate, we're very poorly adapted to eat raw meat as carnivores do, but have some adaptations that allow us to eat carrion and/or cooked meat.

Those adaptations are not natural but purely artifical considering we have to prepare the meat. To say we're omnivoires is not a statement of nature. Remember, structure = function; show me structural designs that bode well for meat eating, esp red meat/pork.

To say we were designed to eat meat with a little adaptation is like saying we were designed to fly with a little adaptation. We can do either, but they weren't natural designs and we die engaging in both. Also, they take major artificial adaptations.

Quote

A guy with a knife, fork and cooked steak really doesn't bear much relationship to how a carnivore eats.

I agree, just as a guy with a wingsuit doesn't resemble a bird.

A guy can bear a baby; it's been done, but if we're talking about what nature meant us to do, what we were designed to do, we are the furthest from a carnovoire that I can think of unless we compare us to fungi.

Hell, even some plants are carnivoires / optional carnovoires. Are any plants obligate carnovoires? None that I know of but humans were not desigend to be carnivoires.

[lurch 0]

Here we go with the combustible birds again.
Were they sprayed with anything or just naturally combustible?
Billvon, have you been offering interspecies avian combustibility education? Last I knew, it was just ducks. Whats next...flammable flamingos?
I knew it. Billvon wants to burn down tackily decorated lawns nationwide.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[billvon 3,116]

>Then explain how vegans exist for decades.

By eating small amounts of dairy, meat or eggs, or by taking supplements. (Also by eating vegetables contaminated by animal fecal matter, oddly enough.)

>Those adaptations are not natural but purely artifical considering we
>have to prepare the meat.

Well, by that measure, our adaptations for hair/fur patterns, our feet, our hands and our skin pigmentation are also purely artificial. Most people would disagree with such definitions though.

>To say we were designed to eat meat with a little adaptation is like saying
>we were designed to fly with a little adaptation.

No, you can't fly at all without mechanical assistance. You can pretty easily eat meat (termites, beetles, raw fish) without mechanical assistance. You may not want to but that's not the same as "can't."

>We can do either, but they weren't natural designs and we die engaging
>in both.

We die eating vegetables, too. Indeed, you'd die a lot faster if you ate nothing else.

>we are the furthest from a carnovoire that I can think of unless we
>compare us to fungi.

Well, herbivores are pretty far from carnivores. As omnivores, we're a bit closer.

>None that I know of but humans were not desigend to be carnivoires.

No one is saying they are.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Point is, homo sapien was designed to predate on vegetation only.

LET'S KILL THE VEGETABLES
I hate them

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Point is, homo sapien was designed to predate on vegetation only.

LET'S KILL THE VEGETABLES
I hate them

You bastard.

[metalslug 36]

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

AFAIK, groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?
Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?
Anyone perhaps know ?

[nigel99 617]

Quote

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

AFAIK, groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?
Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?
Anyone perhaps know ?

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it.

Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

There is a place for all of God's creatures.....right next to the mashed potatos and gravy. Yum!

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?

It is effective in exposing illegal activities.

Quote

Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society asserts they have "gone on to end the careers of 9 illegal whaling vessels, saving thousands of whales."

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily.

read up on paul watson and the sea shepards. they are eco-terrorists. they've been on a show on animal planet not for 2 seasons called "whale wars". its a great show, and surely this ramming will be the climax of season three. at the end of last season, they rammed a japanese boat. paul watson is an idiot and a danger to the lives of his crew and the lives of the japanese whaling fleet, but like most people of his ilk, human life is far less important to him than animal life.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[redlegphi 0]

Yeah, I've watched a couple episodes of Whale Wars and was immediately struck by how incompetent the crew seemed. Had I donated money to fund their operation, I'd probably be pissed.
That said, Paul Watson does seem to have some concept of how to fight an IO fight. I would wager that not only was this collision his fault, it was intentionally orchestrated by him to draw attention to "the cause". In essence, he's traded a 2 million dollar boat for publicity.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

> Everybody knows dead penguins float belly down.

That's what the so called "consensus" thinks. THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED! There was a dead penguin at the San Diego zoo a few weeks ago - floating belly up. But I guess that's an "inconvenient truth" eh? You won't see THAT in any of those fancy schmancy science journals!

Geez, Bill, do we have to explain EVERYTHING to you?? The reason that bird was belly up was because of all the nao-thermite sprayed on it's back.
The truth will be revealed soon, possibly in the next few days, that it was penguins sprayed with nano-thermite that brought down the trade center towers. Building 7? That's where the excess penguins were stored.

LOL

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

AFAIK, groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?
Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?
Anyone perhaps know ?

If anything, it brings a political bummer down on these nations, often more devastating than any actual loss of revenue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

AFAIK, groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?
Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?
Anyone perhaps know ?

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it.

Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them.

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.