Primal food (meat etc) vs. Predominantly fruit.

I've heard that durianrider Harley, will soon be having a face off with a guy named Richard Nikoley who runs the blog Free the Animal.

Richard is this guy who blogs about eating meat with the occasional attempt at justifying his actions through moral. I say occasional, as I have read recently that he plans shortly to do so. So maybe I exaggerate some. Anyhow, the latest I have heard is that the debate is to be hosted/moderated by Steven Prussack of "Raw Vegan Radio" (anyone have a web address or can confirm that?), probably within a couple of weeks from now.

I for one am curious to follow the debate, and see the final outcome.

After having myself recently also begun my own little debate with Richard and his crew, directly on his blog, I can safely say that the majority of his readers, and Richard himself appear to be unable to hold a rational debate without resorting to insult and profanity. Those commenting on his blog appear quite full of aggression and anger, which I guess is not surprising considering their diets.

Actually, I was a little disappointed that Richard would not man up to simple questions I asked him, preferring instead to skirt around issues rather like a politician does to avoid answering something directly that they are perhaps otherwise unable to tackle truthfully. Actually, my focus of questioning was mostly revolving around the ethics of animal eating, and because I'm a persistent bugger, I eventually got Richard to state his opinion that he is predominantly a selfish person who really doesn't care what happens to animals so long as they end up on his plate. For him it's all about taste.

Surprisingly, despite a few people throwing around the phrase that meat is superior nutrition, and many apparently believing that this was an unquestionable fact, not one person offered any real evidence to support that claim.

I found also that Richard and his crew appear to be using a different dictionary to most, they define words in very different ways to what I am used to. For them, peace is one sided, and if they are inflicting harm on another, they believe they can do so peacefully. Respect is another word which they have a very different understanding of, for them they brandish the word respect in combination of taking the life of another, for me this action is never respectful of that others life, but for them, they like to believe that it is. Actually, there is some contention there, as when pushed Richard seemed to air a degree of uncertainty in his view on that.

When I finally felt that I had had enough insults thrown at me, misquoted and false conclusions drawn about me, I withdrew. The whole debate took place over 3 days I think, and can be read here:

See the comments under his post

Interestingly, on leaving, quite a few people have added further comments that I sort of wanted to jump in and tackle, but I don't really see what the point would be, as I know that likely is that once more I would end up having my words twisted. To Richard, though, who responded to my statement that to the best of my knowledge morals cannot really be imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being. He came back and said:

It's a prima facie fact that morals are imposed upon people in abundance. Ever read a law book? What, you think, statutes are based in thin air, out of ass ideas? How about murder? Rape? Kidnapping and robbery?

I'd like to say that if you ever stumble upon this Richard, then please see that once more we have different dictionaries, because for me, morals and laws are 2 very different things. The law may say don't kill another human, but if it is truly in someones natures and desire to do so, they will find a way to do so and attempt to not get caught.

You ask me also directly, Richard, whether or not I am about persuasion, or if I would resort to legislation. I say forget the legislation. I would like for humans to have a global shift in conscience, and for laws to be unnecessary. I do not like governments or laws, and tolerate them merely because I must. If the road says 80 is the limit, and it's clear and safe to do 100, and I am guaranteed there are no cops, then I will do 100.

And to Sonagi, who threw in his final snide comments, I would add that once more you fail to report the truth and that I never derided anyone for disagreeing with me. I criticized people like yourself for not being able to hold a rational/logical debate and for twisting words and misquoting. I am quite at ease with outright disagreement. And my reference to Jorge was not about his English per se, at the time of writing I was not thinking at all about him not being a native english speaker, speaking several languages myself, I understand the difficulties of debating a language other than my own, and admire him for doing so. I was referring purely to his insistence that animal killers respect the animals they kill..

Anyhow.. I sort of felt that I wanted to get this out of my system. Too time consuming and a waste of energy really. I hope Harley enjoys himself, but I don't expect either party to change their view.

(I recall some years ago, when I used to run a forum, that I started a similar debate that focused on Fox hunting.. it went on for far too long, and got no where really. you can read it here: The Fox Hunting Debate).