But you were responding to a question that was specifically asked to another poster, having quoted his post which contextualised the question. If you're going to butt in and speak for someone else, at least do him the courtesy of reading and understanding what you're responding to rather than just shrieking out unhelpful words.
Don't feel obliged to watch it, it's nearly an hour and a half long, although imo it's well worth the watch if you can spare the time and are interested enough.
I'm not sure I understand your question. You can pick practically any meat that you'll see in Sainsbury's for starters. Nearly all meat that is eaten by modern non primitive man is not raw, bloody and still warm which is how most genuine meat eaters consume theirs. Practically all our meat is substantially changed from it's original form, presumably to make it palatable and less "off putting". I suppose chicken would be the closest to a whole animal that you'might see in sainsbury's and some fish. The orientals appear to be less squeamish than us western folk on these matters, which is why we complain about their low standards of "animal welfare". Maybe they are a bit more honest about what they do and don't try to hide it.
All of that is for convenience though, with the exception of not eating meat raw. But you're not seriously using that to support "we don't really like it" are you?
Pah, beat me to it.
Blue venison
It can actually work the other way, people don't know how meat is produced and scare videos fill the gap, which aren't the reality at all. I think being exposed to how farming really is would lead to less veggies, not more.
This has gone down a different path now. Few meat eaters would condone many industrial meat production practices. Many are extremely selective about the meat they purchase for those very reasons. But the vegan proposal goes way further than that, doesn't it?
The same thing applies raw potatoes and turnips for most people are not palatable. There are plenty fruits, leafy greens and some vegetables that can be eaten in their "natural" state. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the amount of processing that goes into what we call "food" and the state of our health and the health of the animals that we look after.
Again, without watching the whole video and the explanation, you're missing out on the full context. The sight and smell of a raw potato or turnip does not create the sort of physiological response as the sight of a dead animal with bloody entrails hanging out. A natural meat eater would be salivating at the sight of fresh kill and ready to tuck in (without a knife and fork) whereas many civilised non-savage humans would be ready to puke up.
Well you would say that wouldn't you. Again as I said to the spymaster just now, it's not just about the cooking.
I was going to watch your video today but I thought it was a minute and a half, not an hour and a half!
swim bladders - therefore airFish bladders.
Your beer is cleared by something that had the job of holding fish piss.
Is there no end to the fishy disgustingness?
Humans are flexible omnivores, capable of thriving on a very wide variety of diets, which was one of the key reasons why humans were able to spread right across the globe. Not 'natural meat eaters'? Really? Tell that to the Inuit, and while you're at it, explain to them how it was that their ancestors were able to colonise the frozen north. I'm not going to watch your video because everything you say about it suggests that it is complete and utter bullshit. And offensive bullshit at that.
Not that I disagree that cooking is generally a very good thing, but there are plenty of healthy raw foodists.
Many are extremely selective, in fact most that I know. An entire sub-industry relies on it. However, the "vast majority" simply can't afford to be, and their social conditioning has meant that they are thoroughly omnivorous. Are you going to tell a struggling mum that her kids shouldn't eat cheap meat (or meat at all)?
