FSTDT

Laurie Forti #fundie ecologos.org

One of the most ridiculous and persistent false claims made by armchair nutritionists, meatarian propagandists, and even academics, who really should know better, is that the human species is an "omnivore"; that is, it should eat both plant and animal matter.

In general, this error is based on the accidental, or perhaps intentional, confusing of the verbs "to be" and "to do". If the human "is" a natural omnivore, then we should have ALL the physical and biochemical equipment that is NECESSARY to run down, kill with our bare hands, tear asunder, eat, and properly digest, RAW animal prey, just as ALL natural omnivores, or carnivores, do. Just looking at our bodies will conclusively prove that we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

No human cultural-carnivore kills its animal prey with his/her natural equipment, nor do they eat their animal prey raw. I have challenged countless meatarians to do so in the past 30 years, and NONE have shown the courage of their conceptual convictions and done so. Why? Simply because we are NOT an "omnivore". In fact, we have strong anti-killing instincts. Try to kill an animal with your bare hands to demonstrate this.

Any second-grader could differentiate between the verbs "be" and "do", yet this important distinction is totally ignored by cultural carnivores, and even academics with PhD's, who foolishly claim that because humans have been DOing cultural-carnivorism for a long time, that somehow (never explained) magically, we ARE "omnivores". They want to believe that DOing modifies BEing. They fail to understand the profound difference between Nature, and inviolable Natural Laws, and silly, self-destructive local cultural customs. By their absurd and faulty logic: because some humans DO murder, and because murder has existed throughout human history, ALL humans ARE born murderers.

If one wanted to produce a logical test to see if the human was a natural omnivore, the procedure would be:
1> produce a detailed physiological and biochemical inventory of all animal species that are natural omnivores,
2> list the commonalties among them,
3> test this list against natural omnivores and other species to determine its discriminative abilities; i.e. test the test, and finally, and only if the test has been verified to be accurate and correct,
4> see if the human parameters fit this test or not.

Of course, this quite obvious test mechanism has not been established, and any unsupported references to human "omnivores", regardless of the source, are confirmations that only cultural whims are being reported, certainly NOT the imperative physiological and biochemical attributes.

Laurie Forti #fundie ecologos.org

Menstruation: a linguistic and biological fairy tale.

Men-stru-ation:
a fantasy concocted by men, a conceptual structure from their imagination.

It has been long reported that humani females when transitioning from a Standard Amerikan animal-centric Diet (SAD), through the trajectory: SAD. cooked-glop vegetarian, vegan, raw vegan, uniformly experience reduction and eventually complete cessation of all the unpleasant manifestations of "The Curse": "cramping", bloating, bloody discharge, pain, tactile sensitivity, offensive odors, lack of energy, headaches, general non-specific bitchiness, ...

It is important to understand that all "disease", illness, "symptoms", physical discomfort, etc. is caused by the human poisoning itself with a cultural diet. Local dietary practices are passed on down through generations, from parent to child by psychological conditioning. The child has no decision-making responsibility in this 'weaning' process, and table-side strife, threats, and punishment are frequent dramas resulting from the stressful nature of dietary acculturation by parents forcing their faulty dietary habits onto innocent, defensiveless children.

Nature does not create discomfort or pain; human ignorance does. The above mentioned unpleasantness is simply the result of cleansing efforts of the body initiated after the brief fertile time has passed. Several toxic amine compounds with instinctually-unpleasant odors may be present, including those in human meat-eaters' feces, or decaying corpses.

> ... and colleagues discovered that men find odors during the follicular phase the most attractive and least intense. On the other hand, the highest intensity smells, corresponding to the lowest attractiveness for men, were found during the time of menstrual bleeding."
This supports the concept that menstrual discharge is a cleansing process, and the excretions are metabolic wastes.

"Wait", you say, "everyone has these symptoms, so they must be 'natural'". Everyone gets "colds/flus" too, so they must be "natural". They are not and may be simply eliminated permanently by dietary change. Raw vegans do not get "colds/flus" or discomfort during their fertility cycle.

This ignorance comes from two factors: the great majority of people eat a highly toxic local cultural diet and most medical personnel are males, or taught by males, so are not particularly interested in solving "female problems". IF male doctors had the same symptoms as females do monthly, including a bloody, smelly discharge through their penises, don't you think they would enthusiastically research the issue and solve it? Being a "womans' problem", no one is interested, even the female MD's and scientists.

Humans are frugivorous apes, with a genetic distance from the chimps, our closest genetic cousin, of a mere 1.6%. Chimps, the other apes, and animals, in general do not 'menstruate'. They may manifest estrus, but that event is out-of-phase with 'menstruation'. That is, estrus occurs before the fertility window and 'menstruation', manifest only in the human, occurs after the fertility window. More important, estrus presents no discomfort to the animal, while human 'menstruation' is accompanied with a plethora of unpleasant manifestations, listed above.

Laurie Fori #fundie ecologos.org

Notice, there is NO useful, meaningful, or even vaguely-scientific anatomical/physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore", and JM foolishly ignores the inescapable fact that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do! In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!
JM has made the all-to-common and fatal error in his totally unscientific and unsupportable claims by confusing Nature and culture; a grievous error which most grade school children would not make. Humans are clearly not natural "omnivores". Some are cultural "omnivores", and indeed must rely on cultural artifacts to raise, kill, butcher, cook, disguise with seasonings, cut up, and finally consume their animal prey. Again, the false definition rests on the phrase "capable of consuming"; however, humans have no natural capability to do so. If they did, they would. Thus, relying on an absurd false definition, JM inevitably and inescapably comes to a false conclusion.
Another insight into the falsity of this concept rests in the mistaken confusion, and proposed false-identity, of the verbs: to be, and to do. Being refers to our genetic code and its consequences, while doing is totally unrelated and a consequence of cultural programming.
Let's examine JM's muddled "thinking" a bit to see how completely absurd, and perhaps intentionally-misleading, the "capable" definition really is.
Humans are "capable" of flying through the air; that makes us birds or flying insects, right?
Humans are "capable" of traveling under water; that makes us fish or sea worms, right?
Humans are "capable" of tunneling through the earth; that makes us earthworms or moles, right?