nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Vegetarians versus Carnivores.

Karl Stein

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kc90

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Increasing lifespan compared to what?

Us homo-sapiens have a long way to go before we can call ourselves superior to other creatures like jellyfish and and crocodiles if you want to bring longevity into it.

What has lifespan to do with anything if it's at the expense of the biosphere that sustains us?

Don't be such an arrogant human.

Uhmm...ok. I didn't compare increasing lifespan to anything. Is there a reason you think I should have?
No one has mentioned superiority but yourself. You said technology hasn't improved survivability ie you brought longevity into it

I'm positive it has, exemplified by a general increase in the human life span.
Arrogance? Elaborate now.

MadsL

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Traps. Do you fall into traps all the time?

One of us has eaten Elephant. Care to guess which one?

Do I win?

Rabies

Quality wrote: »

I have made grown men cry. Without laying a finger on them.

My strength from with in

Winner!

Your cooking can't be that bad, can it?

Cavehill Red

Arawn wrote: »

They kept hunting big game and didn't adapt. That was their problem. We didn't appear with guns.

And what were we eating? Oh yeah, big game. How didn't they adapt? They didn't have our superior technology is how. We didn't need guns. Spears and dogs did the job.

Gummy Panda

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

Humans. Proven track record

Arawn

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And what were we eating? Oh yeah, big game. How didn't they adapt? They didn't have our superior technology is how. We didn't need guns. Spears and dogs did the job.

Actually humans at the start ran prey to death. Humans ate much smaller prey than neanderthalls. We started to eat rabbit while they continued to hunt big game whiich was rapidly disappearing.

Also do you really think neanderthal man didn't have spears??

Also it's been suggested that interbreeding had a lot to do with it, or the fact we may have brought germs and viruses with us when we settled europe, think small pox and native americans.

also they needed more food and required more energy to function, so with the massive climate change they would of been less able to adapt.

Shenshen

"Superior" vs. "inferior" animals?

Really?

Is that how poor your understanding of ecosystems and evolution really is?

Throw an elephant in a tank with a shark and see who comes out top.
There is no superior or inferior in nature, there simply are animals who are adapted to their niche in the ecosystem.

--Kaiser--

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

I dunno if you're being serious or not, but elephants are killed by lions once the lions are in a large enough pride (20+). Humans (also pack animals) are also historic predators of elephants (not speaking of poaching BTW)

dodderangler

For every herbivore there is a carnivore to prey on them. Size means nothing on it. Hence why animals live in packs or herds.
A herd has safety in numbers and a pack animal have more a chance of getting a kill.

Geomy

Shenshen wrote: »

"Superior" vs. "inferior" animals?

Really?

Is that how poor your understanding of ecosystems and evolution really is?

Throw an elephant in a tank with a shark and see who comes out top.
There is no superior or inferior in nature, there simply are animals who are adapted to their niche in the ecosystem.

It all depends on what kind of shark you put in with the elephant.

And a tank isn't the shsrks natural environment, so I think the shark would be more wary than the elephant. ..

Anyway who's going to put a shark into a tank with an elephant ?

omahaid

Elephant vs the moon, who will win?

Geomy

The moon of course :-D

darced

This post has been deleted.

kneemos

omahaid wrote: »

Elephant vs the moon, who will win?

An elephant would trample the moon.

FatherLen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

jump up and down on its head.

elephants can't jump.

Genghiz Cohen

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

Man used to hunt Mammoths.

Elephants are like Mammoth's campy anaemic cousin.

mattjack

Shenshen wrote: »

"Superior" vs. "inferior" animals?

Really?

Is that how poor your understanding of ecosystems and evolution really is?

Throw an elephant in a tank with a shark and see who comes out top.
There is no superior or inferior in nature, there simply are animals who are adapted to their niche in the ecosystem.

Hmmm , I'd imagine the shark might drive the tank and the elephant would be the gunner/radio operator.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=elephant+tank&um=1&safe=off&sa=N&biw=800&bih=485&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=9efOERdIOlkX5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-95949286/stock-vector-german-ww-ferdinand-elephant-tank-destroyer.html&docid=_RT_iWjuTKcn1M&imgurl=http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/819670/819670,1330074412,10/stock-vector-german-ww-ferdinand-elephant-tank-destroyer-95949286.jpg&w=450&h=339&ei=Z_cmUsyQNqid7QbM04GYBA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:39,s:0,i:215&iact=rc&page=6&tbnh=171&tbnw=221&start=38&ndsp=9&tx=200&ty=57

I give you the elephant tank.

Thank you , that is all.

Mr Benevolent

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

Come on Chuck, we all know carnivores are better.

Ush1

As has been said, lions will often hunt an elephant. Particularly at night around water, where the elephants eyesight is very poor.

Wibbs

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, the fact that humans can employ tools that can kill other animals does not make us superior. There is no evidence superior technology leads to better survivability.

Eh yea it does. We went from small fruit and nut eaters to typing on keyboards in space because of technology. We externalised and drove our own evolution and we're the only animal to have ever done that.

Arawn wrote: »

Actually humans at the start ran prey to death. Humans ate much smaller prey than neanderthalls. We started to eat rabbit while they continued to hunt big game whiich was rapidly disappearing.

Not quite. They lived in Eurasia for the guts of 300,000 years and no widespread large animal extinctions occurred. We show up and they do. Indeed you can nigh on trace our arrival in various parts of the world by following large animal extinctions. If Neandertals were running outa food, it would have been our doing. But they weren't for the most part. Plus they had wide ranging tastes in food too. At some periods more wide than us. They ate root veg, birds, shellfish, fish, even sea mammals. Hell they were processing wild grains and seeds into biscuits tens of thousands of years before any evidence we were. Yep Neandertals were eating biccies, not unlike those health bars so fash today. The shaggy haired man ape trudging dumbly through snow fields in pursuit of mammoths is a tiny and cliched part of their culture over 300,000 years.

Also do you really think neanderthal man didn't have spears??

And they had them before us too. Oldest spears so far found in the world belong to them and they're beautifully made throwing spears too and 100,000 years before the primitive versions of us modern humans show up.

Also it's been suggested that interbreeding had a lot to do with it, or the fact we may have brought germs and viruses with us when we settled europe,

Maybe but that can go both ways too. They seem to have had nuclear powered immune systems. A number of them found had horrible traumas that would fell an elephant yet they survived them. One guy lost an arm in his youth(may even have been purposely amputated to save him) and survived at least a decade after it. Imagine the infection risk there. Interestingly a couple of researchers are reckoning that the reason we have some of their genes still is because those genes gave an immune system boost to us.

think small pox and native americans.

Actually that's not nearly so cut and dried either. EG the Aztecs had a word for smallpox in their language before the Europeans arrived and Spanish descriptions of early outbreaks follow what you would expect of smallpox, but the later mass killer is different. Plus how would an introduced pathogen take 30 years before it's first outbreak, then take a further 50 years before really getting genocidal? Makes no sense. For a start those who had survived the first bout would have passed on some immunity. The pestilence that really decimated the population had a different and newer word. From the extensive descriptions by Spanish priests, and Phillip the 2nds personal doctor(sent by him to learn about native meds and therapies) the real killer wasn't smallpox, but some sort of local, non introduced hellish hemorrhagic fever.

also they needed more food and required more energy to function, so with the massive climate change they would of been less able to adapt.

They lived in Eurasia for 300,000 plus years. In that time they would have survived countless climate changes, both local and global, yet they survived all of that by adapting. The thing is if an alien was to land on earth say 100,000 years ago and asked the question which one of these humans would survive, it would have been a hard one to answer and they may well have chosen Neandertals.

kylith

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

1) lions eat elephants. There are even prides that specialise in hunting elephants.

2) the blue whale, the largest creature ever to have lived, takes dumps bigger than elephants, and has no predators at all, is a carnivore.

Therefore carnivores are better.

Shenshen

mattjack wrote: »

Hmmm , I'd imagine the shark might drive the tank and the elephant would be the gunner/radio operator.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=elephant+tank&um=1&safe=off&sa=N&biw=800&bih=485&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=9efOERdIOlkX5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-95949286/stock-vector-german-ww-ferdinand-elephant-tank-destroyer.html&docid=_RT_iWjuTKcn1M&imgurl=http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/819670/819670,1330074412,10/stock-vector-german-ww-ferdinand-elephant-tank-destroyer-95949286.jpg&w=450&h=339&ei=Z_cmUsyQNqid7QbM04GYBA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:39,s:0,i:215&iact=rc&page=6&tbnh=171&tbnw=221&start=38&ndsp=9&tx=200&ty=57

I give you the elephant tank.

Thank you , that is all.

*lol

A tank full of water! Can I help it that the English language is so miserly to use a single word for multiple things rather than actually create an accurate separate word? :P

Shenshen

kylith wrote: »

2) the blue whale, the largest creature ever to have lived, takes dumps bigger than elephants, and has no predators at all, is a carnivore.

Therefore carnivores are better.

It's a very male thing to assume that bigger = better

MonaPizza

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

prides of lions do attack and kill elephants.

Duggy747

Someone needs to watch a few Attenborough documentaries, me thinks.

corktina

Here's a fact for you....Carnivores don't get themselves eaten

this may be because herbivores taste better because they are full of vegetables whereas carnivores are full of nasty meat. Another wild theory of mine is that Carnivores could be full of parasites from eating meat

The only creature I can think of that eats Carnivores (dogs perhaps) would be the Korean and it's similar creatures.

Shenshen

corktina wrote: »

Here's a fact for you....Carnivores don't get themselves eaten

this may be because herbivores taste better because they are full of vegetables whereas carnivores are full of nasty meat. Another wild theory of mine is that Carnivores could be full of parasites from eating meat

The only creature I can think of that eats Carnivores (dogs perhaps) would be the Korean and it's similar creatures.

So a mongoose would only eat vegetarian snakes, then?
And a killer whale would never touch a seal?

Zillah

Topper Harley wrote: »

I'll only eat things that once had a face and possibly a conscience.

Ideally I want my food to have had an existential crisis in the lead up to its death.

lol not really I'm vegetarian

corktina wrote: »

Here's a fact for you....Carnivores don't get themselves eaten

Haha, what? Sure they do. Most of the ocean food cycle is carnivores getting eaten by bigger carnivores. Bears eat seals, carnivorous birds eat smaller carnivorous birds, snakes eat crocodiles, crocodiles eat snakes, birds eat snakes, snakes eat birds...

MonaPizza wrote: »

prides of lions do attack and kill elephants.

Very, very rarely, and even then it is usually juvenile, old or sick. So it takes a whole gang of alpha predators to take down a single feeble elephant.

pajor

Arawn wrote: »

I dont eat sauces or spices or any of that stuff. MY steaks do be delicious on there own

I would have hoped that steak would have just won this one.

mitosis

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Elephants. What animal, carnivore or not, would take on a healthy Elephant in a fight? An Elephant would pick up a lion with its trunk, throw it 500 meters, then sprint after it and jump up and down on its head just for fun.

So with the above synopsis of the animal kingdom being undeniable - who could pretend vegetablarians are inferior to carnivores?

Talk to me.

A human?

There is a story wherein Hannibal told a captured Legionnaire he could have his freedom if he could kill a war elephant in one on one combat. The Roman killed the elephant, Hannibal reneged and killed the Roman