Omni's Random Video Noise

Question everything, huh? Okay, then - why is this documentary necessary? If this documentary is so entry-level, why would you recommend it to the people who would protest it while working off a similarly basic understanding?

Why assume that feminism (or "calling ourselves feminists") is just a "phase" that people go through?

Does this film actually investigate the reasons for claims such as men generally dying sooner than women or is it just context-free point-scoring?

Is the "red pill" community any less of an echo chamber for setting up their opposition as "bluepilled"?

Does its questioning of assumptions about men's roles in society reflect back on toxic ideals of masculinity or is it all focused on blaming The Feminists?

How does one distance themselves from feminism and also acknowledge women's hardships?

Does the film do anything to acknowledge the Red Pill's toxic public reputation or the negative connotations it creates for legitimate men's-rights concerns?

What exactly makes Sargon worth listening to?

If questioning everything is so important, then how much did you question what this film was doing?

I don't think I've questioned everything, but it's a start.

I will read your review after I watch it. Never heard of it, sounds both frustrating and interesting.

I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.

Do tell me your thoughts.

You are much more plugged in to these social movements than I ever plan to be. I think I agree with you about the overall effectiveness of the doc. The Film makers verdict seems to be that we all have battles we need to fight and it turns out women and minorities aren't the only ones who are and feel marginalized. Listening and understanding are more productive than trying to drown each other out. Pretty basic stuff. So yeah, the MRA has valid opinions but it doesn't appear they are any better at listening to feminists as feminists are to them.

The most apt opinion in the film is the metaphor about the snow drift. It applies to everyone in every walk of life. Life is never going to be an even playing field but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to achieve that. All our problems are nuanced and we should take a nuanced approach to them.

The film maker takes a very pragmatic approach and that in and of itself was refreshing. It would be nice if we all could learn to listen to each other instead of constantly trying to one up each others social problems.

I am glad I watched this but it definitely wasn't life changing, and I won't be joining either movement anytime soon.

Omni, how do you get your fill of B-12 vitamin?

Because a family member of mine tried to go vegetarian and got cancer because of immunodeficiency from lack of aminoacids and B12 vitamin.

Hence, I dont think its natural for people to get cancer.

Also, food companies like MacDonalds exist in every country of the world, in Japan there is about as many MacDonalds per capita as the US and in Japan obesity is almost inexistent, as result their life expectancy is 5 years higher than in the US. Clearly the food company conspiracy with the healthcare industry does not exist in there. Well, such a conspiracy is similar to conspiracies about UFOs and similar silly things.

Okinawa had the longest life expectancy in all prefectures of Japan for almost 30 years prior to 2000. The relative life expectancy of Okinawans has since declined, due to many factors including westernization. In fact, in 2000 Okinawa dropped in its ranking for longevity advantage for men to 26th out of 47 within the prefectures of Japan. Japan has the highest life expectancy of any country: 90 for women and for men, 84. Compare this to America where the average life expectancy for women is 81 years old, and 76 for men.
There are more than 400 centenarians in Okinawa. Although there is a myriad of factors for differences in life expectancy, a large factor is the cuisine. People from all around the world have tried to emulate the "Okinawa diet" to reap its health benefits, believed to be because it is nutritionally dense yet low in calories. This is also true of the Mediterranean diet.

The traditional diet of the islanders contains 30% green and yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet usually includes large quantities of rice, the traditional Okinawa diet consists of smaller quantities of rice; instead the staple is the purple-fleshed Okinawan sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 30% of the sugar and 15% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.
The traditional diet also includes a tiny amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork is highly valued, yet eaten very rarely.

Their diet is best described as frugivorous and folivorous, consisting mainly of fruit, nuts, seeds, including grass seeds, leaves, and in some cases other animals, either hunted or scavenged, or (solely in the case of the humans) farmed—along with anything else available and easily digested.

STOP. FUNDING. THIS ****.

And people have the ****ing gall to call vegans extreme, YOU'RE NOT MADE TO EAT MEAT!


And you're not made to suck on cow **** either! You're just weird!

I'm the normal one! I AM!


[/left]
[/center]
Final Verdict:

[Friggen' Awesome]
[/left]
[/center]
[/left]
[/center]
[/left]
[/center]

Humans are Omnivores

Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D.

Document Sections:
Introduction
Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Omnivorism
The Great Apes
Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record
Cell Types
Fermenting Vats
Jaws
Salivary Glands
Intestines
Conclusion
APPENDIX: Other Thoughts
For Questions or Comments
Introduction

There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet

Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

Omnivorism

The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

The Great Apes

There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates).

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores

Archeological Record

As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types

Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats

Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws

Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands

These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.

Intestines

Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

APPENDIX: Other Thoughts

The following information is taken from The New York Times, May 15, 1979. According to Dr. Alan Walker, a Johns Hopkins University anthropologist, Homo Erectus, the species immediately ancestorial to our own Homo Sapiens, had evidence of an omnivorous diet. Every Homo-Erectus tooth found was that of an omnivore. However, a small sample of teeth from the human-like species during a 12 million year period leading up to the Homo-Erectus period, indicates the earlier species may have been a fruit eater. Even if this species, way before our own, lived on a fruit diet, they probably would not have consumed what we consider typical fruits. Hundreds of plants produce fruits that are tougher, more substantial foods than what we eat today.

Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.d., Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology:

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Quoted from "WHAT DID OUR ANCESTORS EAT?" in Nutrition Reviews, by Stanley Garn, Professor of Nutrition and Anthropology, and William Leonard, Assistant Professor of Human Biology:

"These people of Upper Pleistocene, and later those of the mesolithic, were our immediate ancestors, no longer hunters exclusively and with whole-grain products and a variable amount of roots, fruits, leafy vegetables and nuts in their diet. We must grant them a mixed diet, with animal fat providing a smaller proportion of their food energy than was probably true for the Neanderthals."
For additional information, please see articles:
What killed Neanderthals? Scientists blame those rascally rabbits. (NBC News Science; 03/06/13)
Analysis of ancient poop shows Neanderthals ate plants, not just meat
Do chimpanzees fight wars and kill? (BBC; 08/11/15)
National Geographic Society Encyclopedic Entry Omnivore
First pots for cooking plants found (BBC; 12/19/16)
This article was originally published in the May/June 1991 edition of Vegetarian Journal, published by:

The Vegetarian Resource Group
P.O. Box 1463
Baltimore, MD 21203
(410) 366-VEGE

Not really. Read this:

[/center]