User talk:Pearl999

March 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.6.192 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Frugivore has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Potentially violating the three-revert rule on Frugivore.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frugivore. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Zhang He (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion project

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. – Athaenara ✉ 01:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While short quotes from sources are justifiable as fair use, what you do goes far beyond that. Please summarize the sources in your own words instead and link to them where appropriate. Ucucha 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you continue doing this. Please note what I wrote before: persistent behavior of this kind will get you blocked from editing. Ucucha 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotations on Wikipedia

Hi. No doubt because of my extensive work on copyright concerns on Wikipedia, Ucucha had asked my feedback on the situation with the first removal of extensive quotes. Wikipedia has deliberately chosen a narrower path than US fair use in part to ensure that we remain well within fair use. Accordingly, while policy permits "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author", "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." As it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." When content is copyrighted, you need to mine the important information and present it in your own words, utilizing brief quotations only as necessary in accordance with the non-free content guidelines. You should be able to get your point across through this method in most cases, particularly if you can link and refer to the extended original in making your arguments. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you did not make your own argument, but just used quotes from copyrighted sources (with one exception). I have reverted your edit. You will get blocked from editing if you do not stop doing this: instead, you should write your argument yourself and only link to your sources, with short excerpts from the sources where required. Ucucha 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Frugivore. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't try this at home.

Eat only stone age vegetables and you will die of protein starvation. You can be a vegan because you eat soy or Mexican beans and such recently created by generations of farmers and unavailable to our ancestors. Not everyone is capable of doing this, either: many people have trouble digesting such large quanties of such beans, which is not surprising given the fact that they had not been a natural part of our diet.

Humans are biological frugivores, you are right. What's your point in saying so? Being a fruit eater doesn't mean you are not also a meat eater; many frugivores eat meat. I will support your adding the fact that humans are frugivores to either the article human or frugivore if you do it in such a way that it does not have a misleading effect on the reader, as some of your sources can seem to do at times, that this fact means that our stone age ancestors were vegans. While you have proven that eating anything more than a "small" (a vague and relative term) amount of meat is not good for the long-term health of the individual, this is also true about sugar, starch, and salt. But these facts are irrelavant because eating too much meat, sugar, etc. was not a problem that stone age people had, so it had no effect on our biology. They had the opposite problem, as many poor people do today; not enough meat, salt, sugar, and such, which explains why we crave such things so much. Chrisrus (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus. Thanks for your support and an interesting discussion. Humans actually have very low protein requirements. Please take a look at the data given here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030301131026/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/origins.htm . Our ancestors had a great variety and abundance of high quality plant foods, and it was the addition of high-starch corms and tubers to the diet that provided extra energy, not beans. According to analysis of data from the China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties, 1. The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs. 2. Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food. 3. The closer the food is to its native state -- with minimal heating, salting and processing -- the greater will be the benefit. http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/01/6.28.01/china_study_ii.html . With regard to craving animal flesh (really the fat content), salt and sugar, please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7533668/Junk-food-as-addictive-as-heroin-and-smoking.html Pearl999 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you admit that humans have protein requierments. You do understand, don't you, that our stone age ancestors regularly had difficulty getting enough food of any kind to eat, as well as a wide enough variety? Life for hunter gatherers is not easy. Do you accept that they were hunter-gatherers, or claim that they were not hunters? Stone age people processed their food with rocks and fire regularly. Otherwise, like raw tubers, meat, and grains, we couldnt' eat or digest them. My poimnt about modern foods like beans and such that make it possible for you to be a vegan and not die is that they have protein, not "engergy". As far as salt goes, there's a book called "Salt" you should read, it was very difficult to come by and so only those who craved it so much that they would go to great lengths to get some survived. That's a problem now that it's plentiful, as you have pointed out. Same's true with sugar, but without salt and sugar and protein you will die. We have the opposite problem now, they are too easy to come by, but our natures have not changed to adapt to the new reality of plentiful salt, etc. I see the telegraph article as further confirmation of this fact. Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course humans require protein. Have you looked at the data I suggested you look at? I understand that it's easy to get quality, quantity and variety of plant foods in nature if you know what you're looking for, something many humans today haven't the first clue about, relying on the relatively small variety of industrially produced nutrient-deficient foods available in supermarkets. Late Paleolithic: Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day, largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. http://web.archive.org/web/20061102133624/http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html. Modern hunter-gatherers: Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days, not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship (Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children must come from elsewhere. Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/oconnell/oconnell.html Pearl999 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying that it's possible to survive as a vegan eating only stone age food, I think you're wrong. Veganism didn't become possible until the development of domesticated crops such as soy. You could prove me wrong by eating only stone age vegetables and staying healthy, but don't do that because you'll die. Chrisrus (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see: http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden/page2.html Pearl999 11:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Nature of Nature

I would like to talk to you about what I find to be the biggest practical philosophical problem and what I believe is at the root of problems like yours on Wikipedia.

If you are like me and probably everyone else, you have a viseral reaction to the concept of natural vs unnatural. Basically, we all assume that nature is good, and unnatural things are bad. I don't know for sure why we do this, but if we stop to think about it, this notion is obviously false. All we have to do is start naming things that are bad and notice that that they are natural. Killing, suffering, disease, pain, starvation, thirst, horror, extinction, rape, sadness, loss, death, all of these things are obviously bad and obviously natural. There are also many unnatural things that are good. Art for example, is good. Technology can be very good. It's difficult to argue against the goodness of technology on the internet. Art and technology are unnatural and good. So there is obviously no connection between whether something is good or bad and whether it's natural or unnatural.

Since this occurred to me, I have tried to apply it in my daily life, but if you also do this, you will find it difficult to do, I'm guessing, as this idea that Natural = good is difficult to shake. I am not going to claim I know for sure why that is, but I have what I think is a pretty good guess. If things are unnatural, they might be doomed. Nature can be resisted, but only so far and for so long. Also, if something is unnatural, it might be difficult to deal with, or impossible to maintain. But that doesn't mean natural = good. It just makes it not the path of least resisance. If something is both natural and good, it's not a problem, nothing needs to be done about it. Unnnatural things are by definition less tested, and therefore potentially, but not necessarily, dangerous. For example; we don't know what will happen if we concentrate X chemical at this concentration and add it to the environment. That some harm will result is a good guess, but might not be true.

If I and others are right, veganism isn't really natural for human beings. It is important to realize that this is not the same as saying that it's bad, impossible, or doomed. The evidence, as you know, seems to indicate that it is a very good thing. All it means to me is that veganism is not natural is that it that we might predict it could be difficult, but even then not necessarily. The thing is, it is my pet theory at the moment, that the people who are vegans tend to be those least likely to tolerate the idea that nature can be bad and unnatural things good, so they are forced by this powerful cognative dissonance to unnecessarily to try to prove that veganism is natural, because the whole reason they are vegans lies in the fact that they love nature. It's my guess, that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Same reply as above. The unnatural alternative (consequences): http://web.archive.org/web/20080119143335/http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html Pearl999 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I finally found it: Appeal to nature. I thought it was called The Naturalistic Fallacy, but, accoring to that article, it sometimes is called that, but the philospher G.E. Moore apparently has a different and primary definition of that. Anyway, obviously things like death, pain, eating too much salt, etc. are natural and bad, and other things such as art, music, technology, and veganism are all good, but not natural. No article, however, that I can find, discusses the fact that whether or not something is natural is a pretty good indicator that there will or will not be problems involved with it. In the case of veganism, the only problem I can find is that it's not that easy for many, and many people can be expected to "fall off the wagon", if you know what I mean, backslide and cheat. Chrisrus (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)