Yup, our vegan pals on Twitter have some interesting theories …
Here’s the transcript of my narration:
Today I want to share some interesting things I’ve learned from vegans on Twitter.
Now, I don’t have anything against vegans. If you choose not to eat animals foods, I really don’t care. If it makes you feel virtuous to eat a highly processed fake hamburger instead of a real one, be my guest. And I suspect most vegans are happy to mind their own business.
But of course, some vegans consider it their mission in life to show up everywhere, including Twitter, and preach to the rest of us about why we shouldn’t eat meat.
And some of them make some very powerful arguments using what we’ll call vegan facts. Which are kind of like real facts. Except they’re not true.
Like this one: Tom Brady is solely on a plant-based diet.
Hmm. If you’re posting on Twitter, I assume you have access to the internet, which means you could very quickly learn that Tom Brady wrote a book describing his diet and training routines.
And there several reviews of the book, including this one from the Boston Globe, which tells us Brady often eats fish for lunch. And it tells us Brady’s book includes recipes for burgers made out of chicken or salmon. And by the way, he drinks bone broth.
There’s another review of Brady’s book in Men’s Health, and it says nothing about him skipping animal foods, but it does tell us he avoids white sugar, white flour and white rice.
And for some reason, he also avoids pineapples, which mean Brady is unaware of this vegan fact: for 60 million years of human development me strictly ate fruit. Our anatomy has not changed. We are still 100 percent frugiverous.
Wow, turns out human beings have been around a lot longer than we thought. Because according to anthropologists, the first humans evolved somewhere around three and a half million years ago.
They were also about three feet tall and looked something like this. Just like the people you see today, since our anatomy hasn’t changed.
And as far humans being 100 percent frugivorous, well of course. Obviously, my northern European ancestors survived the long winters by importing fruit from somewhere near the equator.
And explains why early humans painted all those pictures of fruit on the inside of their caves.
Oh, wait, those appear to animals. Including paintings of humans hunting animals.
Well, we can explain that one away by tossing out this vegan fact: meat was a delicacy for Neanderthals.
And our tweeter knows this because I’m no sprinter. I wouldn’t OF caught any gazelle.
Yeah, I’m going to agree with you there. You probably couldn’t. But why would you believe your ancestors couldn’t? Well, apparently it’s because that’s what vegan doctor John McDougall says. Here’s an example from a recent interview.
But wait a minute. Neanderthals, paleolithic humans, Native Americans who followed the buffalo herds. How did all these humans get a reputation for being such proficient hunters?
Ahhh, that explains it. Humans got their reputation for being great hunters because of gender bias. We were actually very bad at hunting, which is why meat was a delicacy for Neanderthals, and why we only ate meat on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
So we’ve finally solved the mystery of why humans painted their caves with pictures of themselves hunting fifteen to thirty thousand years ago. They were decorating for Christmas. Or Easter. Or some other special occasion where they ate meat.
But apparently early humans had a lot of those special occasions, because scientists have used something called isotope analysis to determine exactly what the Neanderthals ate. You have to admit, it’s pretty awesome when a delicacy makes up 80 percent of your diet. That’s like me living on lobster in a nice caviar sauce.
So why would anyone believe this nonsense? Well, humans form conclusions in a couple of different ways. People who are more rational tend to be objectivists, and they think like this. If it’s true, I’ll believe it. People who are more emotional tend to be subjectivists, and they think like this. If I believe it, it’s true.
And that’s nothing new. Aristotle wrote about it more 2,000 years ago. And it’s probably been that way for the 60 million years that humans have been around, with the same anatomy we have today, and living 100 percent on fruit.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
“They call TV (and videos) a medium because it is rare when it is well done.” ~ Steve Allen
Thank you. These take some time to put together, but I’m having fun with them.
Your audience is having fun with them too. This has become my favorite blog! I was reading some of the older brother’s stuff here today; I like him too. He should consider writing a piece for American Thinker, another favorite of mine.
I wish he’d write more too. He’s very good at it.
“I wouldn’t OF caught any gazelle.”
Phrases like that bring out my inner pedant. It’s “wouldn’t’ve”, short for WOULD NOT HAVE. Get that people, it’s HAVE not OF. Bah humbug.
Tom I suspect that you were using it ironically, given that you capitalised the word, and you’re probably quoting directly from some vegan’s rant. Given the level of scientific illiteracy of the vegans, it’s hardly surprising they don’t understand English either.
My Mom was an English teacher. ‘Nuff said.
OK I finally watched the video and you WERE quoting an idiot vegan! I knew it.
That guy Mc Dougall hardly qualifies as a good advertisement for healthy vegan living, like most of them he looks decidedly ill (and slightly deranged – clearly B12 and DHA deficient). As for this notion that hunting for big game was merely a matter of male boasting I heard a feminist anthropologist making the same claim. Yet I also read that some other anthropologists convinced a hunter-gatherer group that the men should hunt small game rather than big, on the theory that small game would result in a more dependable food supply since often big game hunters return empty-handed. However the result was that overall the amount of food brought in was less than before.
What those anthropologists ignored is that there is a logical division of labour in hunter-gatherer societies. The women need to stay close to the children so are less mobile and therefore concentrate on less mobile food resources. These include not only roots and berries but also small animals and insect larvae (eg witchetty grubs). Australian Aboriginal women would dig out animal burrows to catch the animals therein, and on coasts and riverbanks collect shellfish, crabs and fish. Meanwhile the men are free to pursue large game for long distances. When they do make a kill, the carcass is shared among all the families ensuring that all get some regardless of whether their man made the kill. Thus the women provide a reliable and regular source of food whereas the men provide a fluctuating source of extra food as a top-up. The point is that if it didn’t provide a benefit the hunter-gatherers wouldn’t do it. No need for idiotic feminist theories of “gender bias”.
It must have been amusing to see a bunch of anthropologists tell hunter-gatherers which animals they should hunt.
English was my best subject. I was editor of the High School paper. I worked in news/sportscasting for 20 years. There are a number of stories that I produced that made it to air and are on YouTube. Grammar and spelling were paramount, not to mention getting the story correct and the names pronounced properly.
Today, even on TV, they cut words out of the copy for time purposes. Instead of “Action News was at the scene” it is now “Action News at the scene…” Horrid.
I have seen article after article of the younger generation of reporters not only get their grammar and spelling wrong, they overuse words like “obviously”. The worst part of that is for those of us who correct them on social media get slammed for doing so!
There is going to be a day when someone wins a Pulitzer Prize whose winning essay or article has the wrong use of the words “Two”, “to” and “too”.
There was a big display ad in the local newspaper with the headline LUXURY LIVING AT IT’S FINEST! I saw a group of young co-workers standing around, so I held up the ad and said I’d give a dollar to the first person who could identify the mistake in the headline. Stares, slow head-shakes, quizzical expressions. Finally one of them said, “Oh! There shouldn’t be an apostrophe in ITS!”
Thank you for providing the transcript.
With apologies to Reagan: It’s not that our vegan friends don’t know anything, it’s just that they know so many things that aren’t true.
You don’t have to be a sprinter to catch an animal. You can run them down. In Dr. Noake’s book “Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Sports”, he details how aboriginal tribes ran down animals. They simply kept them “penned in” and they ran slowly, for which the animal is not designed. It can actually die without being touched, because of the stress of a long, exhausting run. It’s built for short sprints, not long marathons, whereas humans are designed for marathons. Also, humans can withstand high heat running, whereas most animals cannot. We can sweat, for instance, while they cannot.
Yup, as a kid I read about some Native American tribe (don’t remember which) in which part of the rite of passage into manhood was chasing down an elk. The elk eventually became overheated and just gave up. Of course, the buffalo hunters were quite adept at bringing them down with arrows.
Man, you are a ray of sunshine every time I check in. Obviously, the link is forwarded to my wife. We celebrated an early Easter last night for supper, with pork chops from a pork-chop tree. No way I could catch one of those by myself.
Best wishes from a fellow Frugarian (gorillas’ digestive system notwithstanding).
I would have eaten eggs this morning, but I couldn’t catch them.
Behold the paschal pig. At my ex-mother in laws, we had a paschal turkey. Somehow paschal turkey just doesn’t sound right. It was as you might guess, an exercise in seder masochism.
‘Vegan’ means ‘bad hunter’ in neanderthalese.
Ha ha! That was good! Critical thinking escapes many because, well, they have to be critical. Vegans don’t want to be critical because that would mean having to actually test personal beliefs. Sadly though, uncritical thinking is not limited to vegans.
Oh Tom, I love you! That was marvelously well done and, as always, very funny! Thanks!
Ancestors tho’…. be interesting to hear if you have any real arguments against veganism. I’d say not.
You mean like this?