It depends on what you mean by meat. While most primates are omnivores, the bulk of them only make that category by eating insects and grubs. While it's true insects and grubs are technically animals, that's not what most people think when they say "animal". The article the AC linked makes the point that a real "paleolithic diet" would be mostly vegetarian because our guts are derived from other primates which are mostly vegetarian.
In any event, my point was that he's wrong. Our ancestors were not vegetarians.
And you are dead right. But our closest relatives among primates, gorillas, chimps, orangutan and (to a less closely related extent) gibbons, all eat actual meat, not just insects and grubs. So even if the great bulk of primatekind were totally vegan our closest relatives are not and that kind of closes the argument.
No, they were not vegetarians. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence showing early man ate animals. The fact that most other primates don't is irrelevant.
Yeah chimps TOTALLY don't eat meat, no meat at all. Thats indisputable.
Dunno, seems to me that the world's democracies have outlasted any Islamic nation's form of government, and are still doing pretty well -- and better and better relative to those Islamic nations over the course of time.
Thats because the foundational principle of the modern democracy is to keep the mass of people believing that they have some say in things and to preserve this illusion by presenting the face of a chaotic, randomly changing elected government. Democratically 'elected' government is about as organised as Brownian motion.
The reality, which is where the extreme stability comes in, is that the elections are a sham and the real power is wielded well behind the scenes by powers that can make or break any elected politician at a whim.
Ie its not amazingly stable and successful because Joe Public is allowed to have a say in how the country is run. Its amazingly stable and successful because Joe Public is kept well the fuck away from running the country.
Good thing, bad thing, I don't know. Not going to make a value judgement on that yet.
Actually, let me reverse my own comment... (having read up on Saudi Arabia's human right's record).
The issue is the Saudi's can target terror with these MITM tools -- true. But they also have a track record targeting basic human rights (free press, faith).
Moxie is well within his rights turning down the job. However, its best he did not reveal the name of the Saudi gent (who still seems sincere).
I'm sure the Saudis would be interested in people seeking to free slaves as well.
The ruling al-Saud family will soon have to come with a follow-up for the current king. In the same time, a complete army of foreign experts & technicians is required to keep the entire Saudi infrastructure ( telco, roads, water supply, power generation ) running. Moreover, the Saudi government is continuously spying upon its citizens, as a habit. Women are slowly beginning to protest against the enormous discrimination and contempt they live under.
All of this taken together mixes up quite explosively. Mark my words: 25 years from now, Saudi Arabia as we know it will have gone down
Sooner than that, I think. The succession passes brother to brother among the sons of Abdulaziz. The youngest was born in the mid 1940s. The available heirs are getting older and older very very fast.
When the brothers are all gone, Saudi Arabia will fall into chaos and that could happen in the next few years.
Some people don't eat meat and animal products for health reasons, others for ethical reasons. So I think this will split the vegetarians and vegans into four groups: - health issues vegetarian - health issues vegan - ethical vegetarian - ethical vegan
Theres also political. I've known many vegans and the ones I've known treat it more like a political movement than a dietary discipline. I guess you might put that under 'ethical' but I think they get so carried away on their ethics that really it becomes political.
though admittedly its not legally sanctioned in the US. It will happen wherever these people go because to them domestic abuse IS the law.
The point is that you can't pass laws that will have any affect on these people because they believe that the law internal to their culture is always more righteous than the laws of the country they are living in.
Since humanity started in Africa, we are all Africans - regardless of the amount of melanine.
Some of us are halfbreed Neanderthals, Denisovans or Homo-erectus. I guess the only people who are in a position to be properly racist are Africans.. the only real pure blooded humans.
The problem is that most of the time the hatred of people who are labeled 'antisemites' is not directed at a race but at something more akin to a geopolitical entity. I can't say they hate the Jewish religion as thats almost entirely racial (at least according to the rabbis in Israel who maintain that you can't be 'a Jew' unless your mother is Jewish). Rather, the 'antisemites' hate something thats more political/economic than religious/racial or even ethnic. For example, I bet most antisemites would hate white European Jews as much as they would hate black African Jews or Middle Eastern authentically semitic Jews (who anyone would have difficulty telling from an Arab).
The use of the term is further watered down by Jews who use it as a generic insult; I have even heard a Jew calling ANOTHER JEW an 'antisemite', in much the same way as a British person might call someone 'a cunt'.
much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
So the proper attitude in your opinion is to welcome the DPRK's prison camps?
You can probably understand why the Palestinians don't feel particularly 'welcomed' by the Israeli prison camps. The Gaza Strip is the worlds biggest ever concentration camp.
The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.
Sigh. When we can't even us our own language correctly, can you really blame the aliens?:)
Yet here we are, smart enough to be able to understand something thats not written 100% gramattically correctly. News for you; most native (and very many non-native) speakers can comprehend huge variations in use of grammar. Its almost as if grammar didn't even exist.
The main purpose of the concept of gramattical (and often spelling) correctness is so smart-arses like you can pretend to be cleverer than others. To create a group of people who could think of themselves as an intellectual elite because they knew rules about the language that the plebs didn't know.
The word 'want' applies to the 'God' of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. And that thing is supposed to have created absolutely everything (except itself, I *guess*).
So if the word 'want' can apply to some supposed 'supreme creator' then it can EASILY apply to a bunch of aliens.
I would beg to differ, maiming people is in many ways far more effective as terror than killing people.
That is coming from an intellectual viewpoint. I agree also (that in terms of causing terror mere maiming works as well) but the point is the terrorists do not view things in that way. If they did there would be a lot more attacks that were similarly ineffective at killing people, but caused a lot of chaos and confusion and hurt.
Again the fundamental motivation here is truly to kill, to rid the earth of each and every person that disagrees with them.
Its standard military procedure with anti personnel landmines. The objective is not to kill the target but to cause an amputation of one or both legs. This causes far greater problems for the enemy than a death. The maimed soldier has to be gotten out of the field, treated, cared for possibly for the rest of their lives. It causes more psychological trauma for their comrades and for the people back home. I think it works pretty much the same when the non government terrorists to it as when the government terrorists do it. And yeah any organisation that uses anti personnel landmines is a terrorist organisation.
Islam, like communism, capitalism, christianity or democracy, is premised on total world domination. There can be no other systems; theirs is the only True way. At least the Jews don't want to convert everyone...
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Why would they make it easier for their political opponents to sue them? It'd make election time a lot quieter that's for certain.
IIRC the UK laws specifically forbid them from being used for political purposes. I imagine in the USA the same could be achieved and the laws could only be used for the financial profit of lawyers?
Also, in this year's World Baseball Classic, Italy made it to the second round (top 8 of 16) and the Netherlands reached the semifinals (top 4). Not a bad showing for the Europeans....
Wow, so one day there might be a true international baseball competition. It should be called 'The World Series'.
Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on what you mean by meat. While most primates are omnivores, the bulk of them only make that category by eating insects and grubs. While it's true insects and grubs are technically animals, that's not what most people think when they say "animal". The article the AC linked makes the point that a real "paleolithic diet" would be mostly vegetarian because our guts are derived from other primates which are mostly vegetarian.
In any event, my point was that he's wrong. Our ancestors were not vegetarians.
And you are dead right. But our closest relatives among primates, gorillas, chimps, orangutan and (to a less closely related extent) gibbons, all eat actual meat, not just insects and grubs. So even if the great bulk of primatekind were totally vegan our closest relatives are not and that kind of closes the argument.
Yes, I know there are other primates that eat meat.
Lots of other primates eat meat. It seems to be the trend more than the exception.
No, they were not vegetarians. We have all sorts of archaeological evidence showing early man ate animals. The fact that most other primates don't is irrelevant.
Yeah chimps TOTALLY don't eat meat, no meat at all. Thats indisputable.
Oh wait... http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
Neither do orangutan.
Oh wait... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21364-vegetarian-orangutans-eat-worlds-cutest-animal.html
And surely not gorillas.
Oh wait... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/
And of course gibbons don't eat meat. Being omnivores.
I like the way Facebook say they don't use HVAC... yet their entire BUILDING is a huge HVAC unit!
Efficiency of scale works nicely with HVAC, if you can afford to get the building made to your specs.
Dunno, seems to me that the world's democracies have outlasted any Islamic nation's form of government, and are still doing pretty well -- and better and better relative to those Islamic nations over the course of time.
Thats because the foundational principle of the modern democracy is to keep the mass of people believing that they have some say in things and to preserve this illusion by presenting the face of a chaotic, randomly changing elected government. Democratically 'elected' government is about as organised as Brownian motion.
The reality, which is where the extreme stability comes in, is that the elections are a sham and the real power is wielded well behind the scenes by powers that can make or break any elected politician at a whim.
Ie its not amazingly stable and successful because Joe Public is allowed to have a say in how the country is run. Its amazingly stable and successful because Joe Public is kept well the fuck away from running the country.
Good thing, bad thing, I don't know. Not going to make a value judgement on that yet.
Oh please. If you can explain why your argument applies to succession in Saudi Arabia, but not why it applies to North Korea, I'll take it seriously.
Oh wow ok then, I really feel that I need to be taken seriously by some Anonymous Coward on Slashdot!
First let me say, I never mentioned North Korea. Second let me say, WHY THE FUCK should I care whether you take this seriously?
Oil at $30/bbl will collapse the House of Saud and nobody will care.
http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2013/05/oil-markets-risk-rapid-reprici-1.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22524597
Actually, let me reverse my own comment... (having read up on Saudi Arabia's human right's record).
The issue is the Saudi's can target terror with these MITM tools -- true. But they also have a track record targeting basic human rights (free press, faith).
Moxie is well within his rights turning down the job. However, its best he did not reveal the name of the Saudi gent (who still seems sincere).
I'm sure the Saudis would be interested in people seeking to free slaves as well.
The ruling al-Saud family will soon have to come with a follow-up for the current king. In the same time, a complete army of foreign experts & technicians is required to keep the entire Saudi infrastructure ( telco, roads, water supply, power generation ) running. Moreover, the Saudi government is continuously spying upon its citizens, as a habit. Women are slowly beginning to protest against the enormous discrimination and contempt they live under.
All of this taken together mixes up quite explosively. Mark my words: 25 years from now, Saudi Arabia as we know it will have gone down
Sooner than that, I think. The succession passes brother to brother among the sons of Abdulaziz. The youngest was born in the mid 1940s. The available heirs are getting older and older very very fast.
When the brothers are all gone, Saudi Arabia will fall into chaos and that could happen in the next few years.
Some people don't eat meat and animal products for health reasons, others for ethical reasons. So I think this will split the vegetarians and vegans into four groups:
- health issues vegetarian
- health issues vegan
- ethical vegetarian
- ethical vegan
Theres also political. I've known many vegans and the ones I've known treat it more like a political movement than a dietary discipline. I guess you might put that under 'ethical' but I think they get so carried away on their ethics that really it becomes political.
Yeah, right.
Next thing you know you'll start talking like there are people outside of the US who matter..
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/29/alleged-honor-killing-suspect-yaser-said-could-be-hiding-in-plain-sight-as-new/
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/55330/another-muslim-honor-killing-in-america-arab-muslim-bro-murders-muslim-sis-in-obamatown/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aasiya_Zubair
though admittedly its not legally sanctioned in the US. It will happen wherever these people go because to them domestic abuse IS the law.
The point is that you can't pass laws that will have any affect on these people because they believe that the law internal to their culture is always more righteous than the laws of the country they are living in.
What is your point? In those countries, sexual assault is not enforced.
Actually, sometimes sexual assault is enforced as a way to preserve family 'honor'
This depends very much on where this happens or in what cultural/religious context.
In SOME parts of the world, if a woman calls the cops after being raped she can expect to be arrested, thrown in jail and raped some more.
In SOME parts of the world, if a woman tells her parents she has been raped THEY will kill her.
Since humanity started in Africa, we are all Africans - regardless of the amount of melanine.
Some of us are halfbreed Neanderthals, Denisovans or Homo-erectus. I guess the only people who are in a position to be properly racist are Africans.. the only real pure blooded humans.
The problem is that most of the time the hatred of people who are labeled 'antisemites' is not directed at a race but at something more akin to a geopolitical entity. I can't say they hate the Jewish religion as thats almost entirely racial (at least according to the rabbis in Israel who maintain that you can't be 'a Jew' unless your mother is Jewish). Rather, the 'antisemites' hate something thats more political/economic than religious/racial or even ethnic. For example, I bet most antisemites would hate white European Jews as much as they would hate black African Jews or Middle Eastern authentically semitic Jews (who anyone would have difficulty telling from an Arab).
The use of the term is further watered down by Jews who use it as a generic insult; I have even heard a Jew calling ANOTHER JEW an 'antisemite', in much the same way as a British person might call someone 'a cunt'.
Rule of thumb for "anti-Zionists" - Watch them - too few can stop themselves from crossing the line into either effective or outright anti-Semitism.
If it were anti-semitic it would be against Arabs as well.
much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
So the proper attitude in your opinion is to welcome the DPRK's prison camps?
You can probably understand why the Palestinians don't feel particularly 'welcomed' by the Israeli prison camps. The Gaza Strip is the worlds biggest ever concentration camp.
Ever tried to pick up a piece of aluminium with a magnet?
I hear it has to be a very very big magnet..
The question of why aliens might 'want to come here' is probably fundamentally flawed because we are forming that question from our current (tiny) viewpoint. The word 'want' might not apply at all to someone 1000 times smarter than us.
Sigh. When we can't even us our own language correctly, can you really blame the aliens? :)
Yet here we are, smart enough to be able to understand something thats not written 100% gramattically correctly. News for you; most native (and very many non-native) speakers can comprehend huge variations in use of grammar. Its almost as if grammar didn't even exist.
The main purpose of the concept of gramattical (and often spelling) correctness is so smart-arses like you can pretend to be cleverer than others. To create a group of people who could think of themselves as an intellectual elite because they knew rules about the language that the plebs didn't know.
The word 'want' applies to the 'God' of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. And that thing is supposed to have created absolutely everything (except itself, I *guess*).
So if the word 'want' can apply to some supposed 'supreme creator' then it can EASILY apply to a bunch of aliens.
I would beg to differ, maiming people is in many ways far more effective as terror than killing people.
That is coming from an intellectual viewpoint. I agree also (that in terms of causing terror mere maiming works as well) but the point is the terrorists do not view things in that way. If they did there would be a lot more attacks that were similarly ineffective at killing people, but caused a lot of chaos and confusion and hurt.
Again the fundamental motivation here is truly to kill, to rid the earth of each and every person that disagrees with them.
Its standard military procedure with anti personnel landmines. The objective is not to kill the target but to cause an amputation of one or both legs. This causes far greater problems for the enemy than a death. The maimed soldier has to be gotten out of the field, treated, cared for possibly for the rest of their lives. It causes more psychological trauma for their comrades and for the people back home. I think it works pretty much the same when the non government terrorists to it as when the government terrorists do it. And yeah any organisation that uses anti personnel landmines is a terrorist organisation.
Islam, like communism, capitalism, christianity or democracy, is premised on total world domination. There can be no other systems; theirs is the only True way. At least the Jews don't want to convert everyone...
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Why would they make it easier for their political opponents to sue them? It'd make election time a lot quieter that's for certain.
IIRC the UK laws specifically forbid them from being used for political purposes. I imagine in the USA the same could be achieved and the laws could only be used for the financial profit of lawyers?
I think clip is available here: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130420&content_id=45278350&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb - you can clearly see the runner trotting off the field before he realizes that he's not out and safely reaches first.
Also, in this year's World Baseball Classic, Italy made it to the second round (top 8 of 16) and the Netherlands reached the semifinals (top 4). Not a bad showing for the Europeans....
Wow, so one day there might be a true international baseball competition. It should be called 'The World Series'.
Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.