There are universities where professors teach only religious studies so I guess if they write a paper about how their religion is true then it's automatically true, it's not like professors are real people and some of them are crazy or anything.



That's why most professors cite sources.

This is a dumb argument. Just because we eat meat doesn't mean cultural standards don't apply to us. This is the exact same argument some christians make against atheists when they accuse them of having no ethics.

ah this is super late, but

it's not the same argument at all.

i honestly want to know what the difference is to people. if it's simply SOCIETY ACCEPTS POULTRY CONSUMPTION, BUT NOT DOG, then that is a bad reason imo.

i have pet chickens who have names. i take care of them, pet them, cuddle with them even! to me there is no difference between eating a dog and eating a chicken.

You were once like me... what happened...

no matter how much the wind howls, the mountain should not bow to it ~mulan

Why should food fall outside of the standard ethics rules of society? In that sense, not eating dog is akin to wearing clothes when you go outside. There's nothing inherently dangerous about not wearing clothes--or eating dog meat--but society deems it incorrect, so nobody does it.

I still think it's actually entirely the same argument.

it's the opposite arguement, it's like christians who believe shit without questioning it.

why would you blindly accept it, just cause it the norm?

you have pet chickens?

yourhero those little guys look adorably Delicious

also "practise"

I ate dog when I went to korea just cuz I could.

there was a kickass funny article in the Believer where some reporter snuck into an anarchoprimitivist camp and he said the old guys were awesome but all the young kids were the most aggressively annoying pieces of shit who were all like WE DONT SHOWER.

sorry guys but when it says "Work of Lee and Devore" and "Ethnobotanical work by Richard Felger and Mary Beck Moser" it's citing it's sources pretty clearly:
Man the Hunter
People of the Desert and Sea: Ethnobotany of the Seri Indians

Things we don't need?

Dok nothing is stopping you from dropping out of school and going into the bush to fend for yourself.

Ethnobotany = shrooms and ayahuasca

yeah well anthropology in general but you're not going to find a physicist studying cultural changes

Forreal dok, why do you post on a computer? Don't let technology mediate your lesiure time. Go outside and roll in the grass or something

man how the fuck did I miss this topic

I read back through it and man I hate to jump on the bandwagon but dok you dont know jack shit about hunter gatherers and you obviously havent learned much in any anthropology class you've taken

and yeah dietcoke I wonder about how obvious it will be to people what I study when someday as part of my cv there is shit on ethnobotany, indo-european mysticism and new world shamanism all peppered in there all over the place

well from a nutritional standpoint he is partially correct

intensive domestication of only a few species of grains and livestock really degraded human dental and osteo health following the neolithic revolution. early farmers were subject to more diseases (arguably mostly caused by denser populations but also had a lot to do with the fact that shitty diet = lowered ability to fight off pathogens) and malnutrition than their hunter gatherer neighbors. granted they probably ate more calories than the hunter gatherers did per day but they were eating carbohydrate heavy diets and not getting enough of much else whereas the hunter gatherers were getting nuts and fruits and wild game and you know shit that hominoids are supposed to eat. farmers also had a longer work day for less return and birthed more children which was extremely detrimental to women's health. as a hunter gatherer you basically have to space your offspring 3 or 4 years apart for obvious reasons, but in an early farming environment, people were and still are today having children at much shorter intervals than that for longer periods of their adult lives and this took a huge toll on many facets of early farmer's health as well

but ultimately that doesnt mean we should reject the advancements of agriculture and revert back to foraging. farming despite all these negatives still can provide sustenance for so many more people per square km of land under cultivation than can hunting and gathering lol

that said, it is obvious that intensive agriculture being the source of most of our food has its drawbacks

cause uh duh like we're finding out now again, basing most of your diet on just a few starchy crops like corn and wheat (or for early farmers barley oats and einkorn) is a really stupid idea. but dok doesnt really understand what this means and is just a dumb reactionary and that you should just eat lots of fruits vegetables some nuts and some fish not too much red meat and SOME grains in balance and you'll be perfectly fucking fine