Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Canine teeth, cold climate, respecting animals...

  1. #1
    spartacus
    Guest

    Default Canine teeth, cold climate, respecting animals...

    Quote Korn View Post
    This is a hippo; a herbivore - and has canine teeth which can reach the length of 3 feet/1 meter - but when they eat, they are grinding up vegetation with their molars (and die when molars have worn down too much).


    Male horses usually have canine teeth (plus a 'wolf tooth), female horses usually don't, but the have the same (herbivorous) diet.



    Humans so called 'canine' teeth don't really look canine at all, but we have different teeth than animals who eat grass (for obvious reasons)...

    John Mc.Dougall, MD:




    More here:
    http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
    This is just completely inaccurate -- referring to a hippo's TUSKS as canine teeth is just plain mis-identification. It's like calling an elephant's tusks canine teeth.

    Humans do have canine teeth and evolutionary biologists say that human teeth evolved mostly for grinding plant matter -- but also to tear and cut meat. Those are just basic facts.

    As someone who is not a vegan yet -- I could not help but notice where most of the posters are from. How many of you live in a place where it snows six months out of the year and local produce is available maybe only four months out of the year?

    If I were to post an argument in favor of an omnivorous diet because it was the most ecological sound choice for my local climate and environment, how would you respond? I live in the upper midwest of the USA -- the breadbasket of the western world. I look out my windows and I see nothing but corn and soy fields for as far as the eye can see.

    Originally this was all prairie that was described as a "sea of grass" by explorers and pioneers. Those pioneers put the prairie to the plow, not for livestock, but to produce grain. This land used to team with bison, elk, deer, mountain lions, bears and all sorts of wildlife. They are now all but gone, not from overhunting -- but beacuse their habitat was destroyed by farmers who were growing what today we call "heritage" or "heirloom" grain.

    Where I live, a hunter gatherer lifestyle, has the least impact on the land. That is how aboriginal peoples (some of them my ancestors) lived for thousands of years. Along the Mississippi a cultivating civilization arose, the mound builders, but their civilization died before the Europeans came to North America. Here, in the upper Mississippi River basin, the only cultivating cultures who survived to encounter Europeans, were ones that also included hunting, and limited the size of their towns to less than 5,000 people.

    If one forgets the "ethical" question of killing animals for a moment and considers the impact one leaves n the Earth, the hunter gatherer culture and farmer/hunter culture is the ideal way for man to live in this environement here when one wants to have as little impact on th eland as possible.

    As for health benefits, are any of you aware of how diabetes ravages American Indian peoples in the U.S.? It is caused by a cheap high-carb diet. On reservations in the Dakotas a homeopathic treatment for diabetes is a diet rich in bison meat. Indian people have found that by returning as much as possible to the diet of their ancestors, health can be restored.

    As for the ethical question: One must always treat their food and the environment it comes from with respect. I find it unusual to equate people with animals. For example: If you were on a sinking ship with three crew members and 100 chickens would you force the people to draw lots with the chickens to see who got space in the lifeboat? That being stated, man evolved in an environment where we hunted for meat. I think so long as the animals are treated respectfully, there is nothing immoral or unethical with killing them for food. That is how nature works. If the moderators here delete this comment, I'll b quite disappointed.

    I grew up in a time where small farms were normal. As a child our meat, eggs and dairy was locally produced on small family farms where the animals were well cared for. Since then, I have had a front row seat to the rise of factory farming.

    The price of meat, eggs and dairy has gone down dramatically in the last few decades when one factors in inflation. But I have seen the environmental cost of this. As soy has become expensive due to rising demand, I have watched as millions of acres that had been in government sponsored conservation programs and had been returning to prairie and once again supporting wildlife, have been put to the plow yet again and become deserts, supporting only one form of life -- soy bean plants.

    I joined this forum because I try to live my life in a way that has the most beneficial impact on the environment and am interested in learning more veganism. I am curious to see how some of you will respond to how my thought process works.

    ALSO -- how does one be a vegan in a climate where 8 months out of the year, your food needs to be either processed and preserved, or transported in from thousands of miles away?

    Do any of you think hunters benefit the environment and wildlife?
    Last edited by Korn; Feb 8th, 2011 at 05:33 PM. Reason: Two posts were merged and moved from another thread (from the area for vegans)

  2. #2
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    One must always treat their food and the environment it comes from with respect. I find it unusual to equate people with animals. For example: If you were on a sinking ship with three crew members and 100 chickens would you force the people to draw lots with the chickens to see who got space in the lifeboat? That being stated, man evolved in an environment where we hunted for meat. I think so long as the animals are treated respectfully, there is nothing immoral or unethical with killing them for food.
    I might respond to more of this later, but please read this:

    "Native Americans have great respect for the animals they kill"
    Based on all you have posted so far, bringing up the same topic in many threads (including the messages which now are in the moderation queue), it seems to me that you aren't so interested in veganism after all - but instead, rather interested in posting stuff that you feel can justify killing animals. Having all these similar questions (being vegan in cold winter climates etc) in many threads just don't make sense...
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  3. #3
    Back-Space's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    594

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    "Do any of you think hunters benefit the environment and wildlife?"

    .... Really?

  4. #4
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote spartacus View Post
    This is just completely inaccurate -- referring to a hippo's TUSKS as canine teeth is just plain mis-identification. It's like calling an elephant's tusks canine teeth.
    Everything I could find says the Hippoos canine teeth are canine teeth, not tusks.

    I think you are confused simply because a Hippos teeth are are a source of ivory but ivory can be teeth as well as tusks.

    I happen to think you are generaly confused on most else of what you posted here so far.

    This is probably because you eat meat and meat seems to have the effect of muddling certain parts of the brain.
    All done in the best possible taste ...

  5. #5
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote Back-Space View Post
    "Do any of you think hunters benefit the environment and wildlife?"

    .... Really?
    Well .....

    The environment and wildlife was here and doing very well, thank you very much, before cowardly tossers with high powered rifles came along and started making extra holes in stuff.

    On the basis of that empirical evidence alone I reason that the excuse of hunting being a benefit to anything (other than to cowardly tossers with high powered rifles) is just another example of meat-muddied minds talking out of their ass.
    All done in the best possible taste ...

  6. #6
    Back-Space's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    594

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Yeah. I'm kind of unsure where murdering wildlife goes to benefit wildlife... Although I'm open to elaboration

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
    Posts
    772

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    If I were to post an argument in favor of an omnivorous diet because it was the most ecological sound choice for my local climate and environment, how would you respond?
    I would respond that - even if you were right - simply considering the merits of a diet on its 'ecological soundness' is much too limited.

    But I guess that is what you would expect from hard-core vegans like us, so why ask?

    Best regards,
    Andy

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
    Posts
    772

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    As for the ethical question: One must always treat their food and the environment it comes from with respect. I find it unusual to equate people with animals. For example: If you were on a sinking ship with three crew members and 100 chickens would you force the people to draw lots with the chickens to see who got space in the lifeboat?
    No, I would not do that, because I am also a speciesist, like you (maybe to a lesser degree) - I would always believe that rescuing the life of a person is more important than rescuing the life of a chicken (even if it was my chicken, and a person I do not know).

    That said, HOWEVER ... I would always argue that it is much more important to rescue the life of a chicken than to 'tickle the palate' of a human for 10 minutes.
    Because that is the only merit of killing a chicken to eat it: 'It tastes good'.

    And that is a very sad excuse for taking the life of another being, IMHO. Let me know where I am wrong...

    Best regards, again,
    Andy

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
    Posts
    772

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    But, to finish the issue of teeth, I think that can be a bit misleading as well.

    Take a look at the tusks of the common TROLL ...



    That look like carnivorous teeth as well, but from all I have heard, the troll normally feeds on a diet of stones and gravel.
    Maybe you would like to shed some light on that....

    Best regards,
    Andy

  10. #10
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote Back-Space View Post
    Yeah. I'm kind of unsure where murdering wildlife goes to benefit wildlife... Although I'm open to elaboration
    'Lo BS

    The hunter, being of a very muddied-mind, feels that he fulfills the natural role of 'predator' which is, in fairness a beneficial role in terms of population control.

    In even more fairness being shot by a twonk with a high powered rifle is better than being ripped apart by wolves (or similar) and being ripped ripped apart by wolves is better than a slow death by starvation, which is natures 'final solution' for population control.

    The mud in Mr 'If brains were made of gunpowder then I would'nt have enough to blow my own nose' stops him seeing several salient points though:

    1. Mr Twonk with his house, car, electricity, hot and cold running water, job, etc is very far from being a natural anything, particularly in comparison to the wildlife he likes to use his unnatural guns to make unnatural holes in.

    2. It was twonks like him who shot all the true natural predators in the first place.

    Mr Twonk will bleat on piously about 'habitat loss' attributing that soley to arable, as opposed to meat, farming. He will be completely blind to the fact that 80%+ of all land lost to wildlife due to farming is used not to feed humans but to feed the meat eaters vast unnatural flocks and herds.

    I.e. 80% of all habitat lost to wildlife is due entirely to meat eating twonks, like him/her self, in the first place.

    Mr Twonk, in a peice of muddy-mindedness of truly epic proportions, see's himself as the solution to a problem that he and his kind (meat eaters) are actualy the cause of.
    All done in the best possible taste ...

  11. #11
    Back-Space's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    594

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote Andy_T View Post
    But, to finish the issue of teeth, I think that can be a bit misleading as well.

    Take a look at the tusks of the common TROLL ...



    That look like carnivorous teeth as well, but from all I have heard, the troll normally feeds on a diet of stones and gravel.
    Maybe you would like to shed some light on that....

    Best regards,
    Andy
    Hahaha!

    Quote Cupid Stunt View Post
    'Lo BS

    The hunter, being of a very muddied-mind, feels that he fulfills the natural role of 'predator' which is, in fairness a beneficial role in terms of population control.

    In even more fairness being shot by a twonk with a high powered rifle is better than being ripped apart by wolves (or similar) and being ripped ripped apart by wolves is better than a slow death by starvation, which is natures 'final solution' for population control.

    The mud in Mr 'If brains were made of gunpowder then I would'nt have enough to blow my own nose' stops him seeing several salient points though:

    1. Mr Twonk with his house, car, electricity, hot and cold running water, job, etc is very far from being a natural anything, particularly in comparison to the wildlife he likes to use his unnatural guns to make unnatural holes in.

    2. It was twonks like him who shot all the true natural predators in the first place.

    Mr Twonk will bleat on piously about 'habitat loss' attributing that soley to arable, as opposed to meat, farming. He will be completely blind to the fact that 80%+ of all land lost to wildlife due to farming is used not to feed humans but to feed the meat eaters vast unnatural flocks and herds.

    I.e. 80% of all habitat lost to wildlife is due entirely to meat eating twonks, like him/her self, in the first place.

    Mr Twonk, in a peice of muddy-mindedness of truly epic proportions, see's himself as the solution to a problem that he and his kind (meat eaters) are actualy the cause of.
    It's nice coming on the internet to get some intelligence Get tired of all the idiocy in my area... I'm not quite sure what his goal is here. Does he feel guilty about what he's doing and is trying to justify it by having a vegan see it as he does, or does he think that coming to a vegan forum to post this bull shit is going to convince us to go back to an omnivorous diet? Is there a reason he's still here? I think we're at an agreement that this guy has no interest in a vegan lifestyle.

  12. #12
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Hi - this section is invisible to logged in members unless they activate the "Vegan/Non-vegan Discussion" Permission Group. So it's fine for people to defend their use of animal products here - it's gives us a good excuse to post why we feel they are wrong! But they have to keep on topic and look for existing threads - and also keep it civil. I just deleted some posts from this area today.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  13. #13
    Back-Space's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    594

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote Korn View Post
    Hi - this section is invisible to logged in members unless they activate the "Vegan/Non-vegan Discussion" Permission Group. So it's fine for people to defend their use of animal products here - it's gives us a good excuse to post why we feel they are wrong! But they have to keep on topic and look for existing threads - and also keep it civil. I just deleted some posts from this area today.
    My bad... Didn't check what section it was in. Still, I don't think he's here seeking knowledge.

  14. #14
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Still, I don't think he's here seeking knowledge.
    But that's fine - since this isn't the seeking knowledge ("Common Questions", "Short newbie questions") section. If our setup behaves the way it should, the area with questions and answer should be visible for all, the actual discussion area (this one) is something you actively need to see, by joining the mentioned permission, group..... unless you aren't logged in.

    Suggestions re. how to improve/change the current subforum structure are welcome!
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  15. #15
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Comments from a non-vegan

    Quote Back-Space View Post
    ... I'm not quite sure what his goal is here. Does he feel guilty about what he's doing and is trying to justify it by having a vegan see it as he does, or does he think that coming to a vegan forum to post this bull shit is going to convince us to go back to an omnivorous diet? Is there a reason he's still here? I think we're at an agreement that this guy has no interest in a vegan lifestyle.
    He appears to want confirmation that he has formulated a meat eating lifestyle that is as environmentaly freindly as a vegan lifestyle, so far as I can fathom, BS.

    Here's one very simple reason that is simply NOT possible ..

    Yes hunting and fishing within sustainable limits may not be environmentaly damaging at all even if still very damaging to the animals.

    Problem is if twonk wants to eat meat than EVERY twonk wants to eat meat and hunted and manualy fished for all the twonks in the world is simply unsustainable.

    Kinda like if you told all the twonks in the world to get a gun and eat only waht they killed for themselves on a Monday morning then by Wednesday afternoon there would be nothing left with wings, that wasn't an aeroplane, and nothing left with legs that wasn't either a chair or a table.
    All done in the best possible taste ...

Similar Threads

  1. Wisdom teeth
    By Zool in forum VEGAN HEALTH
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: Aug 1st, 2005, 11:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •