Have humans ever killed animals using just their bare hands (..and teeth)?

by the way, to anyone on here who takes offense to our talk about our beliefs regarding the vegetarian/vegan cause....
why do you feel the need to take offense when you should expect that coming into a forum that is clearly labeled "vegetarian"?
the majority of people who come into this forum are vegetarians...hmm, kind of makes sense doesn't it....so if you're offended by what we state and believe in, remember you walked into it

 

no offence here,, i just replyed to a thread...
words on a screen my sister...

Luv~N~Lite..

 

catching animals with your hands and teeth, sounds like a reality show on fox. i think i might give it a try

 

In a few isolated cases, it works in favour of liberal states. However, in the grand scheme of things, when it looks like the Senate is giving a 50/50 vote, it's actually more along the lines of a 35/65 vote among the people. That isn't the same in the House of Representatives, but still, it's stacked in favour of conservatives. Bush would not have been elected in either race if our Constitution wasn't flawed and if he didn't secretly have the polls rigged (like every major presidential candidate has tried to do).

As for the HRE, it's my understanding (not necessarily correct, just what I've heard) that the Empire broke down because it was too large for a single man to control. What happened was, because it was a pure democracy, the brightest fellows started to manipulate the ignorant lemming-like public, so that they could ensure that they got voted in. Eventually, the Holy Roman Empire fell under mob-rule, and structure broke down. This broke the Holy Roman Empire into a variety of smaller states, and thus began the feudal era, the Middle Ages.

Thanks. =) I guess it just comes naturally to me because I do a lot of typing, as I'm a computer science major. It doesn't bother me to type things out fully, because it doesn't take a lot of time.

Lol! They already have it, sorta, when you grease a pig up and chase it around; you know that game!

 

hippie hillbilly i wasnt really referring to you, but okay

and you're welcome hikaru... I didn't really mean the typing so much as the fact that you word things well. When I try to make the same point as you, it never comes out sounding half as good.

 

what do you mean bush would not have won either election? in 2004, he won by several million votes. in the popular vote..so if he won the popular vote, and the electoral vote..what other vote could there be that would make our constitution unflawed?

 

certinly no offence from me i did 10yrs vegan and no salt but lifes circumstances made me reilise for me i should eat what was offerd or go hungry! i respect vegitairians with all my being! but being a omnivor i beleive i deserve the same! i think the question was did or do or have they ever and or is it "natural" how it got turnd into a disscusion of politics i have no idea! the fact of the matter is if you want to live as a vegitairion in a "natural" state you can not do it in the northern lattitudes!! period. i see that no one commented on my erlier post about my challenge to live in the wilds of alaska as a vegitairian i will garruntee if you try you will soon become an omnivor or move south are you saying to me that the native peoples of the northen latts. are not "natural" i respect and admire your position i dont particurly like store bouht meat but to say it is wrong to eat and or catch kill gut your own food witch i think was the question of this thread never happens go back to hippybillys pic. its a matter of eating or not for some!!

 

ya i know i can get carried away and not express myself as eloquntly as i would like please forgive me if you would!!

 

whoops! the qust. was have humans ever killd using their hands and teeth i believe the answer is AHHH YES!!!

 

In 2004, he won by several million votes?

The popular vote does not determine who the President is. Bush only won by a few electoral votes, and because there are about a dozen uneducated states that all have two votes each, all you'd need to do is remove about two of those states, and Bush would have lost. Bush would have lost nearly 10 of his electoral votes if the Senate's power was actually balanced. It would have cost him the Presidency.

Now I don't mean to pick a fight, but the following is a quote that a vegan friend of mine said to me before I became vegan:

"I don't respect your decision at all. I only respect that its your decision to make."

That being said, it's an excellent quote. How can any vegan respect a decision to eat meat? I can only respect that it's your decision and not mine, but the decision itself is not something to be respected.

You know, some veg*ns (myself included) would actually eat meat if our survival depended on it. My problem isn't with surviving, my problem is with the *unnecessary* killing and torture that goes on. When we don't NEED to kill and eat meat to survive, we shouldn't be. But, if I have to survive, I have to survive, you know what I mean? Existance precedes morality.

That would be an incorrect answer, then. Maybe a few isolated incidents where one guy got lucky and caught a rabbit or something, but on a large-scale basis, humans have never actually roamed around killing things with their hands and teeth. We had to invent tools before we could actually kill and eat unless we got lucky and caught a small animal, or unless we found an animal already dead and uneaten.

 

so sorry i have caught and eaten many with my hands ground hog, crab,lobster,clams,salmon,trout,catfish,turtle,turkey,rattlesnake,ummm i think thats all!! ohh creyfish, heehee! and i didnt say that you should respect my decision i said or atleast meant that i as an a omnivor am still worthy of respect.

 

LOL - good point!

------------------

Megara:

The definition of 'natural' I have in mind is the same one as I understood to be used by those whose argument I was trying to respond to, or preempt. A common argument I hear in debates regarding veg*nism is: 'but other animals eat meat, so it's only natural'! So, for this debate, the definition of 'natural' I would like to limit ourselves to is: behaviour that is observed in other species. Alternatively, you could use a definition such as: the more processed the materials used in an object's (e.g. tools used to kill/dissect animals) manufacture; the less natural it is. Seeing as no other species seem as inclined, or able, to process nature's raw materials in the manner, or to the extent, that humans do, the definitions seem to be largely compatible to me.

As far the definition of natural implied here, it seems to me to self-destruct! You are effectively extending the definition of the word to include everything shaped by man (a.k.a. 'manmade'), as well as what exists 'unprocessed' in nature already - and this equals ...well ...everything!
When you say "Animals (humans included) use what their talents are", are you implying that - because it is 'natural' to use one's talents - everything that is created with those talents are natural? If so, then the Pentium IV processor inside the computer I'm communicating this from; the space shuttles sent by NASA in to space; the wireless communications technology in the mobile phone I use to communicate with my friends and family; and the fizzy-cola-bottle sweets I ate as a child are all 'natural' as well. Obviously this is ridiculous! To extend the definition of 'natural' to include manmade objects as well as nature in it's unprocessed (..by man) form, is - in effect - to extend it's definition to include 'everything'; and, as such, use of the word becomes utterly pointless!

You may consider the definition of 'natural' I have used in this context to result in an argument which is deficient in it's scope, but ...as I said ...I was merely using the same definition as those whose argument I was trying to respond to!

But a spider's web is as much a product of it's own body as saliva is a product of the human body. It's analogous (..in one sense) to our own limbs or teeth, and it's manufacture takes place inside it's own body. It doesn't involve any conscious processing of external resources, e.g. metal, or wood even!

The "other animals" weren't intentionally employed by the scavengers to do this - as foxhounds are for the purpose of hunting for example; nor are they guided by a man-made leash!

I never said, or implied, that it was. And the most-human-like apes don't use "250,000 dollar farming machines" to cultivate their veggies - do they?

----------------

flmkpr:

Fair point, and thank you for pointing that out. As I said in my initial post, however, "The 'animals' I refer to - in this context - do not include insects, which obviously don't demand the same degree of 'disection' as other animals, and which other primates are known to include in their diet."

Interesting point, but - although I have read that they use stones to crack open nutshells - I couldn't find anything to support your assertion. It does seem plausible, as I've read that apes occasionally eat small (non-insect) animals, but can you refer me to any literature to confirm your claims?
Also, even if they use something other than their bare limbs and teeth to kill an animal, what do they use to finish the job? (..genuine question - I honestly don't know!) Presumably they don't just swallow the creatures whole?

In retrospect, it would have made sense to have added shellfish to the exception list as well. Again - in all fairness - they don't require any significant degree of 'disection'!

This is related to what I wrote in response to Megara - it depends on the definition of 'natural' that one uses. No more than the definition used by those I was responding to would have encompassed such behaviour, should it be extended to encompass such behaviour in this debate!

You could also challenge anyone to be a non-cannibal on a space-shuttle which runs out of supplies on a planned year-long expedition ...and would this be much-less relevant to the discussion? Also, in as much as people in Alaska presumably still use tools to catch, kill, dissect, cook and eat animals, I don't see how this answers my initial question - "Have humans ever killed etc. animals using just their bare hands (..and teeth)?"

----------------

hippiehillbilly:
You may have killed that bird with your bare hands - and in pointing out such, you have, in fairness, answered my initial question - but are you not going to use some sort of tools to finish the job? You have yet to remove it's head; pluck off it's feathers; remove it's entrails etc. etc.; and cook it! And will you not use some sort of utensils to cut it up? Not use a knife and fork to eat it? What about the pot that you'll boil it in; the oven you'll cook it in; or the spike you'll stick through it if roasting it over a fire? Not to mention the fire itself! Humans were around for quite a while before they began to control fire - no? Or maybe you eat your meat raw?

----------------

I see your point. Although, in one sense, killing such an exquisite, living machine in the manner he did seems absurdly and unnecessarily destructive, I suspect it's far less cruel than other possible methods.

----------------

FUCK THE TREES:

Wow! On average, the words in that term have three syllables each! That's very impressive for a man who goes by an alias as sophisticated as 'FUCK THE TREES' . I'm just curious: do you realise the potential pun in your username? A picture of a man boring a hole in tree; then proceeding to un-dress springs to mind! ( :shiver: - bizarre! ) If I were you, I would have stopped posting on these forums as soon as the penny dropped - out of the embarassment!

Also, if you're going to wear such a numbifyingly-stupid statement as your proud badge (..if I may call it such), you ought to at least qualify it with a clause such as "..but at least consider replacing them with plants which will compensate for the relative lack of carbon-dioxide-recycling tree foliage". Then again: that would add considerably to the verbosity of your username - I hear you!

Oh for goodness sake - you're taking the piss, right? Well, you're either criminally stupid, or else just very good at intentionally annoying people.
This is the second time you've brought this up in your short sojourn on these forums (..on the other occasion your argument was even more absurd), and even a child could detect the twisted rationale (..or lack thereof) you employ each time. To begin with: do all - or even many - liberals/libertarians actually use the term "open-minded" to describe themselves (..or at least after thinking about it)? I consider myself very much a libertarian (..a libertarian-socialist to be more specific - I bet we'd get on like a house on fire ), but I rarely, if ever, refer to myself as "open-minded"; and if I did, I would be careful to qualify the statement. The main thing I'd point out is that: even if a person is "open-minded" in certain respects, it doesn't mean they're open-minded to the extent that they will unquestioningly allow challenges to what they consider reasonable principles. The defining characteristic of 'liberal' people is (..or at least should be) that they value 'liberty' - not that they are automatically 'open-minded'!

BTW: 22 out of your total of 23 posts in HipForums are in these vegan/vegetarian forums - so, as someone who is manifestly non-vegetarian, feel free to tell us exactly what your motivations are for coming here! It seems very much an anomaly - and a sinister one at that! I, nor I suspect anyone else here, would even consider attempting to stop you from joining in the debates (..after all, this is a fairly 'liberal' environment); but if the views you put forth are (consistently) so markedly-opposed to the very purpose of these forums (..and both hippies and vegetarians), don't expect warm smiles.

P.S. Hikaru_Zero - I'm totally with you on this; I can't stand conservatives either!

----------------

Very well said!

----------------

In hindsight, I would have done well to phrase the question in the thread-title slightly differently:
Have humans ever killed, and caught, and dissected animals (..or done anything else necessary before digesting an animal) using just their bare limbs (..and teeth)?
i.e. have they ever done the job from start to finish with their own bare limbs and teeth?
(..and again: excluding insects, shellfish and any other easily-dissectable creatures for that matter)

 

yeah man choppin block is much easier an humane,, as far as the eatin without tools,, who knows who cares,,,

although at least when it comes to crawdads and fish etc.. sure ya can eat them raw and around the guts..

no fire needed or nuthin,,..

 

The big flaw with this argument is that humans have negated the need to evolve carnivourious traits because they have developped tools in their place. Comparing other animals to humans just isn't fair, no other animals have developped brains as we have.

 

Aye, but you have caught them with your hands, because we no longer live in a natural environment. Besides, catching is one thing, eating is another.

Ground hog: Did you eat the ground hog right there? Or use a knife to cut it first? That's a tool. You didn't eat it with your hands.

Crab/Lobster: Did you break the shell open using your fingernails? I doubt it. You'd have to find a sharp rock to bash it open; another example of a tool.

Clams: You have to boil them before you can pull them apart.

Salmon, trout, catfish ... wait ... you CAUGHT these with your HANDS? I highly doubt you caught a CATFISH with your hands. That, no offense, sounds preposterous.

Turtle, turkey, rattlesnake ... You sure you caught AND ate the turkey with your bare hands and nothing more? No gun, or anything?

Also ... a man is worth only as much respect as his decisions. Because a man's decisions are a reflection of who he himself is. You don't deserve respect just because you are there. One deserves respect only if he makes wise decisions. The same way that a criminal does not deserve respect for being a criminal, I don't think that omnivores deserve respect just for being omnivores. For that matter, I don't think that vegetarians deserve respect just for being vegetarians. Rather, respect is based only on one's decisions.

I wouldn't respect a vegetarian who is a vegetarian just to be "cool." That's a stupid decision, which isn't worthy of respect. An example of a decision that IS worthy of respect is, say, a decision to respect all life.

There we go. The decision to respect all life is a decision that can be respected. And the maker of such a decision can also be respected for making that decision.

 

yes, he won by over 3 million votes. Bush won the electoral college by 34 votes..simply removing a few states with just 2 votes wouldnt have cost bush the election..losing a large state like ohio would have.

I think you're being mighty unfair in just labeling states 'uneducated.' Nothing is simple as its made out to be. This whole red state/blue state shit is a farce. Is michigan an educated state because it went to kerry by 2%? Is Ohio uneducated because it went to bush by 2%?

our system is not rigged to help out conservatives. It's meant to protect state's rights. Why should a small state be at the mercy of a larger state? We have a senate and a house of reps to BALANCE out the tyranny of the majority.

 

So, since other animals use tools to eat foods, surely its 'natural' under your definition for humans to use tools? If so, how can you make distinctions between say a rock, a sharp stick and a gun? where do you draw the line?

Pretty much.

Who is God and can set the limits for what is natural or isnt? I dont see how things like taming fire, using sticks as spears, and other tools is somehow unnatural just because men do it. It seems like you're trying to tailor a meaning to fit your argument.

We are taking raw elements and through our own ingenuity fashioning something out of them. Humans are unique in the sense that we are a very advanced brain that no other animal possess. Is a cheetah's speed unnatural because its unsurpassed among land animals? Why is our brain capacity and what comes from it unnatural because we're unrivaled?

but you contradicted yourself. You say its not natural for men to eat meat because we usually use tools to capture our food. As others have already said, ANIMALS use tools too. Is it unnatural for them to do so?

 

Alright, I am mistaken, insofar as how many votes would be removed. Thanks for correcting me. The electoral college isn't just comprised of the Senate. Regardless, losing one or two larger states would still have cost him the Presidency.

Perhaps it is unfair, but in many of these smaller states, a larger portion of the population has less schooling, and the schools are of a lesser quality. I don't mean to imply that a state that votes Democrat is educated; a state can vote Democrat and be dumb as all heck. It's just that educated people TEND to be more liberal than others. It's nowhere near always the case.

Right. And because it protects state rights, and because states are represented unaccording to population, the power distributed among these states is not actually representative of the population; thus, it is misbalanced.

 

I disagree. I think the most educated(professors) tend to be liberal. I say those with some form of education tend to be republican. Those with the least education tend to be democrat.

however, liberal is relative. I'm liberal compared to pat buchanan and i'm more than likely conservative compared to you. Where is the official liberal/conservative divide set?

What party is an uneducated black more likely to vote for? An uneducated white? I think education has little to do with it, honestly. An uneducated black is going to think that the democratic party represents him best. An uneducated white person from say mississippi will probably think the republicans will represent him best. Why? I'm sure its a variety of reasons including: gun control, abortion, death penalty, affirmative action, and religion to name but a few reasons. Now, unless you want to argue that only educated people are pro choice, anti death penalty, pro AA, and anti religion then i think you have to admit that education is but just one facet of why people vote the way they do.

You're looking at the senate again. The senate is where every state is equal to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Thats how the system is.

Now, the power in the house of reps is distributed because of population. For every 500,000 you get 1 rep. Now, in a state that has 990k, you only get 1 rep. For a state with 1.1 mil, they get 2. Yes, it may seem unfair, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Now, for example. California gets 55 electoral votes(2 from senate, 53 in hosue) out of a possible 540 votes. Now, if we subtract 100 electoral votes for the US senate that leaves us with 440 and then 2 from california's electoral votes so we get 53. 53/440=12.045% California has 12.2%(35 mil/290 mil)of the US population based on 2003 estimates. So yes, there is some discrepency between voting power and population. This is of course negligible because you have to draw a line. If you give california an extra vote, they are overrepresented..so how do you rectify this? I'm willing to bet that EVERY representative democracy has this same problem...