Vegan Thread 3.0 - Page 14

On June 04 2011 02:39 travis wrote:


yes absolutely lol, cats are major murderers



I don't understand your comparison and I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. If you say it's because "murder only applies to humans" well then fine but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is basically "killing another without a justifiable reason". Now obviously a giant philosophical debate could happen over what "justifiable" means, so I hope we can agree that a cat(or anything else) "just wanting to" doesn't make it justifiable.

On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote:
I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.

With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.

See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.

On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?

On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote:
I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.

With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.

See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.

On June 04 2011 12:09 Aurocaido wrote:


You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.

So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.

On June 04 2011 12:29 Impervious wrote:

While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.

For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.

Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.

Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.

Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....

Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.

On June 04 2011 12:50 Aurocaido wrote:


Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.

The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.

Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.

On June 04 2011 13:03 Impervious wrote:

Do you see the same types of teeth on pure herbivores? And if they do, do they also have canine teeth to accompany them? I can't think of too many species off hand that have both (other than some species of horses).


And the length of a true herbivore's digestive system is far longer than a humans is, relative to the animal. Also, I never said we were fully adapted to eating meat..... Just like we can't go outside and graze on the grass..... We can't really do either extremes.....


Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?

On June 04 2011 12:19 Laerties wrote:


Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.

On June 04 2011 13:24 BlackJack wrote:


Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.

On June 04 2011 13:20 Aurocaido wrote:


Most herbivors in fact do possess canines, that is not something reserved to carnivors. You also said the purpose of incisors was not to eat plants.... what? That is exactly what they are used for. No one reading this should believe anything you have to say pertaining to oral anatomy anymore. Carnivors are also unable to move their jaws from side to side like humans and herbivors are able to which helps to chew plants more thoroughly which aids in digestion.

I never claimed humans were not omnivors, as for traits inherent in true carnivors humans possess zero. I can not think of a single trait that is characteristic of every true carnivor that we have. The ones you stated are either completely wrong or irrelevent. Can we just go out and graze? Of course not, but then again other great apes, (which are our closest genetic relatives) can not do that either. Humans are best adapted to eating fruits and vegetables.

On June 03 2011 22:10 BackHo wrote:


That's not true though, because by paying the industry to slaughter the animals after having kept them in cages, you are in effectively 'going out of your way' to harm them. Is there any different from killing an animal on the street (what I presume you mean by saying going out of your way to harm one) and killing one in a factory? It's like paying someone to lock up a pet dog in a cage for the duration of its life and then slitting its throat at the end for food.

Edit: For an example of what I mean by keeping a dog in a cage, see the 10:50 mark of this video:



The pigs and chickens that are kept in cages have worse conditions than the dogs above.

On June 04 2011 12:50 Aurocaido wrote:


Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.

The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.

Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.

On June 04 2011 13:44 Minzy wrote:


who's to say that human flesh is not tasty, why must you create these imaginary "moral" barriers to your lifestyle. why do you and those that share your particular idea's not consume dogs, or cats, or even whales, but not think twice about eating a cow. why do these things create such disgust in the average western person? if you're religious then you'd know what you're religion preaches, compassion. if you're not and you're just talking shit(which is the likely case), then why do you bring god into youre poorly thought out argument.