More critic topics on Gary Yourofsky lecture

In previous article we deal in summery on lies/distortion/mistakes in Gary's lecture. In this page some more topics.
The article was translated. If you have found grammar mistakes, please write your correction
to the - Email

Please Note: we have also general article about Debunking vegan propaganda

 Gary Yourofsky, gives a lecture about animals and vegetarianism, which was very popular.

The lecture attracts attention: it has images from the Holocaust, comparing eating meat to murder, There is horror movies with jolly music, the lecturer previously funded by PETA, former prisoner, man who uneducated in the field which he talk about, and he compares himself to Jesus and Martin Luther King, the lecturer speaks with a great self-assuredness, moving much during the lecture, addressing to the crowd emotion, offers the public to buy brands (states hr had no profit), occasionally rattling and displays nonsense as facts, like "the egg is period of the chicken" or the human are plant eaters. There is a show "good", and usually attached with a title "Best Speech You Will Ever hear." But it is not the best, this is demagoguery, techniques of a cult leader, or brainwasher.

Rationally, the main deficiencies in lecture:

1. Long inaccuracies biological facts.

2. Ethical and ecological approach inadequate.

3. Lecturer who lies and distorts openly, with great aplomb, without guilt, and with a history of prison and charm - it's not good. It may be a psychopathic disorder direction. Yes. There are notable people like that who where vegetarians (Adolf...).
Please note that this is not an innocent man who make mistake in a casual conversation on the street. This is a man who was preparing for Lectures, received responses from the audience, and in other ways like e-mail - This can't be accidental that are so many errors and failures, Without it being on purpose.

If you did not find any problems on his speeching, you are in a bad state, because it is very easy to deceive you. There are lots of inaccuracies things. The audience finds it difficult to face Gary's distortion, although many of them are very easy to detect, for example, he said that there are herbal products which has the taste of meat, but we all tasted that schnitzel - soy , and we know that isn't true. sometime it nearly fit when it comes to a highly processed food "meat analogue" like sausages, and that also need a blind taste test to determine if people distinguish taste or not. But Gary is not interest in studies. He goes on to say that cooking of avocado together with potato - creates egg taste. No one stood up to tell him it isn't true. Everyone mesmerized.

Well - the taste is not the central issue. Here some more:

Gary said: The length of our intestines are somewhere between 7 to 13 times the length of our torso, our trunk. That's the same length of all herbivore animal intestines on this planet. They're very long. But the length of the intestines on real meat eaters, hyenas, coyotes, bears, tigers and lions, only 3 to 6 times the length of their torso. They have a short intestinal tract, so they can push through quickly, decaying and rotting animal flesh. Animal protein, cholesterol, saturated fat, trans-fatty acids, which is why it is impossible. I'll repeat, impossible, for any genuine meat eater to ever, clog their arteries. Never happens to a real meat eater.

Claim without a source ("Why should a source of expert, if he himself expert" ...). It is not sure that everything there is accurate, for example, a short search on Google and you'll find veterinarians sites which tell you about dogs with artery-clogging.

What is "Decaying and rotting animal flesh"? - it is unclear... you may ask Gary.

Nevertheless as usual in pseudoscience facts - the right things are mixed with wrong, and text sounds scientific and complicated, so there are those who draws it must be true, especially as it was said at the university, by "lecturer" and with great self confident. Here explanation. What is more or less true - it is true that predators have shorter intestinal relatively to a human. It is also true that predators are much less likely to clog their arteries. What is the fallacy? - This is a classic example that someone invents incorrect theory (that a human is Herbivore) gathers only data that assume it is correct, and ignores other data, then says "I am right." Here is example for use that fallacy to show that a human is meat-eater - we will invent that a human is carnivore (meat eater) - then we show like Gary that plant-eaters cope better with plant food - for example, can digest grass, they have much better digestive system for that (like as the charlatan Gary, we can throw data and numbers, like "torso" - save me that part) - and then saying - I am right, there is a difference, so it's mean that a human is a meat-eater. In both cases, we invent a theory, and then we are looking just on data which support it and ignore unsupported data.
So what is the true without demagoguery - without demagogy, and without ignoring unwanted data - is the regular scientific theory - that a human is omnivore - all-eater. Gary does not compare to all-eater. In science there is no claims that a person is a predator like lions and tigers, that why the differences that Gary pointed, does not contradict any accepted scientific theory.

The Example of demagoguery which I have given is correct in the fact that person does not have a digestive system that could handle such good with plant food as herbivores, but that does not mean that a person can't eat a nice dish of vegetable daily.
The example that Gary gave is half-correct in the fact that a person does not have a digestive system that can handle such as carnivore with meat, but it doesn't mean that the person should not eat daily dose of animal product.
The carnivores are specialized in eating meat, and have a good digestive system especially for that purpose.
The Herbivores are specialized in eating the vegetation, and have a good digestive system especially for that purpose.
 The omnivores (all-eaters) are specialized in eating a wide variety of food, and they can manage it better than herbivores and carnivores. It has Disadvantage, such as that Gary (more or less) said: If we eat too much animal food - We have a much higher chance to get artery clogging than predators, so health agencies warn us from eating too much and recommend balanced behavior. Moreover, there is no formal scientific body, which says we should eat only raw meat like lions and tigers. There are also disadvantage to be Omnivore without specialization as the others, for example, even when the grass around us in abundance, we can't eat it. But it has an advantage that a human can adapt to different environments and different diet.
More problems in the demagogue concept:
* Comparison of the Predators-order, to a person who is a Primates order.
* There is no fixed relationship between the length of torso and the intestines, which determine who is a predator. Assuming that the data that Gary Said is right "3 to 6 times" - It is 100% difference in a relative creatures.

The case of the squirrel - Gary tells the audience a test to know if they are designed to eat meat - he say that none the audience can't go out and catch one of the squirrels in the area as a predator, and eat it all like a predator. He declare that he'll give a reward to those who succeed do so. This example is also problematic. You can use the same similar logic, and tell the audience to go out and eat grass like a goat. If they can't - then the conclusion is that they are not herbivore and shouldn't be vegans. If you want further explanation - in the development process of the mankind he learned to create tools, and discovered the fire and learn to cook. No animal can do so - and they need something in their body to deal with all their food. The mankind can use tools. For example - the food we eat most - grains (wheat, rice, et al) - is non-digestible for a human without processing such as cooking and marinating. It does not mean that it isn't food for human, it may say that that in the evolutionary process, it wasn't necessary to develop teeth and digestive system to deal with such food. The discovery of fire and the ability to produce tools gave man a great advantage by being able to eat many types of food, that can't be edible otherwise. Most of our food does not eaten like an animals in the wild.
* Similar demagogic experiment: Take a seal, put it on campus, and see if he can hunt squirrels. If not, it is mean that a seal isn't predator, but it a plant-eater.

 * In biology, it is important to beware of classifying animals by their adjustments features to the environment. If one creature is similar to other creature, that isn't a sure sign that could give us information about its origin and its nature. Example: a whale is similar to a fish, due to the adjustment to the environment. Demagogue like Gary was able to come and says that this is not true that a whale should rise above the water to breathe. A whale, would say demagogue, is a fish: it has no legs, has fins, no fur or feathers, it uses its tail swimming, like a fish has no claws and is not saline, like a fish also it is not able to catch a squirrel in the campus, he lives in a water and can't live on land, therefore, preach demagogue, a whale is a fish, and as a fish, it does not need to breathe air above the water.
These are the style of Gary's claims. Be careful to fall into the trap.
* More examples: some bugs, most birds, and bats can fly by using wings. It does not mean that they are the same family, and has similar nutritional organs.
* Kangaroo, jerboa and frog are going forward by jumping on the back legs. That does not mean that they are the same family, and has similar nutritional organs.

Experiment: rabbit and apple - Gary "the scientist" suggest us to make an experiment: "find a 2 year old child, place the child in a crib, in the crib put 2 things, a live bunny rabbit and an apple". To the sound of laughter of audience he says: "If the child eats the bunny rabbit and plays with the apple ...", He promises to give the audience a new car and "eat a steak sandwich in front of everybody".
OK, Gary made a good show; and what about the biological facts? Does it prove that a human considered to be a "plant eater"? Maybe he "eats plants + cooked meat", and that why the baby will not eat the uncooked rabbit ? What about that experiment: cooked meat + apple? (Or giving the child a cooked rabbit and a cooked apple). What about a trial of the world's most popular plant food - corn / rice / wheat - and not only grain from that plants - giving all the plant like to a real herbivore - will the child eat it ?.

Similar demagoguery - according to "Gary method" we can also offer other experiments.
1. Take a small child to McDonald's. Ask him to choose between: 1. Hamburger. 2. Salad.
What will he choose ?. We know what the children choose when they come to McDonald's, don't we? Almost never a salad. Does it mean that one carnivore (meat eater), or that I planned an experiment that will lead to the opposite conclusion than Gary?
2. Another experiment suggestion in "Gary style" - take a puppy at about the age that corresponds to a two years old baby (still not walk as an adult, and still not eat solid food as an adult) and take a kitten at similar developmental age and put them together. If the puppy does not chase the kitten or not eating it - according to Gary's logic - 1. Dogs are not chase cats naturally. 2. Dogs are herbivores (that why the puppy doesn't try to prey). 3. The cat is an herbivore even.

* Even a predators, are need to learn how to prey. You may see it when a predator lives in a capture all of life, without similar condition as in the nature - usually if it release to the wild, it will be incompetent to manage, he couldn't hunt and die.
* When someone is giving a two years old child to hold an animal in his hand - even at a rabbit size, it is too large for him. If you give a toddler to hold a chick in his hand, lot of times the child will hold it too tight, and smash it even to death. It's not because bad intentions, but because motor-skills that have not developed enough in hands, and because of a lack of understanding of his actions. Those who work with pets and children properly are aware to that problem, and don't allow the child to do so. Things like this shows that it is difficult to conclude from watching small children behave on the natural relationship of man and animal in general, certainly not conclusive things as Gary is trying to show.

Another experiment suggestion - whether they are carnivore ? - Apparently they do not "swallow the frog, but also probably they won't eat as goat the vegetation around, but will return home for a meal

Where there is less computer and TV, but more natural, many children "catch", "hunt", animal as part of game or because of curiosity.
You might have done similar things by watching TV and playing computer.

Experiment suggestion - is the child Herbivore ?

A native in the Amazon with the hunting.
Without meat, without hunting, the tribe will not survive just by eating leaves, roots and seasonal fruits available Jungle. For them "Vegetarianism is a murder." without the hunting, the tribe will die due to lack of essential food elements.

The relationship between a human and animals is complex far beyond relations between predator - prey.

An herbivore eating grass.

The article was translated. If you have found grammar mistakes, please write your correction
to the - Email

Please Note: we have also general article Debunking vegan propaganda