On June 03 2011 23:35 RoyalCheese wrote: I don't have problem with eating meat and i eat is myself. But i think its inhuman that animals are being "manufactured" just to be eaten when they are year old. Also, i think people saying that "civilization is build on eating meat" idiots, because even 50-100 or so years ago it was not the case. People ate mostly vegetables and meat was usually eaten on special occasions. But people nowdays don't give a fuck about anything. So meh.
Those animals that are being "manufactured" have undergone so much artificial selection that they can no longer survive on their own. I don't see to many farm animals out in the wild about the only ones that I know of that can live outside a farm are pigs. Also agriculture wasn't even invented until about 10k years ago we have been around for at least 250k possibly 400k. Dogs and Sheep were domesticate before we were even farming. I understand the part about not wanting animals to suffer but you could at least not lie about our evolution. I'm not buying the whole we mainly ate vegetables BS if that was the case then why did we migrate all over the world following herds of 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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
I've been doing it wrong all this time.... dear lord
TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Poor animals, it's not their fault they taste so good.
But it's still true. Mm.
The moral argument for veganism can be applied to any meat-eating animal, just because lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) don't have chicken farms doesn't mean it's a different situation. Shit breaks down from there; veganism is just another modern, artificial way to grab moral superiority. Also a good way to boss people around, first with words and (hopefully, to them) eventually with laws and force behind them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
One guy makes a typo and you jump on it, great.
Whats the difference between herbivore and omnivore teeth? The Canines. I highly doubt he meant to type out incisors.
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to.
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
yep pretty much. and then when you eat other culture's cuisine and you realize that you can't eat anything good because it all has meat in it.
Let me sum up all of the arguments on the "eat meat" side.
Why do we eat meat?
1. Because its fucking delicious. I've had vegan fare, I've eaten vegetarian food, and yeah there's enjoyable things on both menus, but I love the taste of meat and nothing will come close to replacing the living flesh of another animal (until they grow steaks on petri dishes).
2. Because we can. Like it or not, we are the apex predators, the top of the food chain. We have the intellect to domesticate animals and use them for culinary purposes, and I guarantee you, if other animals had the intelligence and the know how, they would too.
And because of those two points, anything a vegan/vegetarian argues to convince us otherwise is null and void. Personally I enjoy large quantities of meat, I'm fit due to 6+ hours of tennis a week, daily jogs and three trips to the gym a week, and I'm generally very, very healthy. My diet is working, and there's no reason for a meat-eater like me to change my diet. Even if you wanted to eat healthier, it doesn't mean that vegetarian/vegan diets are the only way to go.
And before you all start screaming about morals and ethics, I'm an avid hunter. Yes, I go and shoot animals, skin them, gut them, then eat them. I've hunted deer, moose, all sorts of fowl, and I love fishing. I don't waste, and love the thrill of the hunt, as well as the taste of fresh game. I've slaughtered chickens on farms as well, so don't give me the "you don't realize you're killing an animal" bullcrap. I realize the importance of animal life, but I also realize they taste delicious.
tl;dr: This thread is just bad, and you can't convince someone not to eat meat if they enjoy eating meat.
I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.....
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.
Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?
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.
Our incisors and general functioning of our mouth is not completely similar to herbivores..... Herbivore incisors are shaped quite differently than carnivore incisors.
If you'd notice - humans are somewhere between the two. Our incisors are not as prominent nor as effective at "tearing plants" as a herbivore (lol at thinking that's the only thing they can do - our incisors are pretty damn sharp, and our jaw is pretty damn strong), yet our canine teeth are not as effective at "tearing meat" as a canine. Granted, this is an extreme example, however, what you'll notice is a general trend that herbivores and carnivores have very differently shaped and placed incisors, and humans are actually closer to carnivores in this respect.
Herbivores almost always have canines that are flat and/or small. Carnivores have incisors that are almost always large. Omnivores such as raccoons and bears have both, humans are closer to "neither". They're not large, yet they're not small and flat.
Also, our molars are smaller than those of a herbivore, relative to the size of our jaw, and larger than a carnivore's, also relative to the size of our jaw (in most cases). Our mouth exhibits the capability to move sideways, as do herbivores, yet we do not have as much lateral movement as the majority of herbivores, yet it is pretty consistent with some other omnivores, such as bears (also doesn't make much difference when our molars aren't large enough to take advantage of more lateral movement than what we currently have). Our saliva also has enzymes in it that break down starches, fibers, and fats. We have somewhere around 8-10k taste buds in our mouths, whereas herbivores generally have a lot more, and carnivores generally have a lot less. The list goes on. And that's only talking about the mouth of the animal.....
I guess I was wrong in saying "we have incisors". I should have said "we have incisors like we do". Our incisors are quite different than other herbivores. My bad for not being clear enough.
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.
Don't forget meats, fish, and shellfish. While our digestive systems may be a few times longer (by a factor of about 2) than a carnivore's would be, it is still a few times shorter than a herbivores would be (also by a factor of about 2)..... Our digestive system is more potent and more capable of dealing with many bacterias that a herbivore wouldn't come across. And if you think we can't stomach raw meat - think again. + Show Spoiler +
That's a delicacy. I know I enjoy it with fresh rye bread on occasion. I also enjoy raw sausage meat (not the type you'll find in a grocery store, home made sausage meat). And there's a lot of other examples of raw meats being eaten. Admittedly, I don't like sashimi or raw fish in general. But people can eat that with no consequences (for the most part).
However, we definitely can't live off of just raw meat. Anyone who thinks they can doesn't realize the harm they are doing to themselves, or if they aren't doing any damage to themselves, then they are a complete freak of nature. While we could (in theory) get all of the required nutrients through ingestion of muscle and organ tissue, as well as bone marrow, our bodies are not good enough at getting rid of cholesterol and large amounts of excess amino acids, among other things like the toxins in an animal's liver, and our bodies are too good at processing fats.
As for a trait that is characteristic of every true carnivore (since the biological ones don't seem to be working for you and some others, or at least not showing a clear non-herbivore state) - I can think of one that is pretty irrefutable - the desire to hunt (psychological, yes, but definitely relevant). Sure, you as an individual may not partake in the activity, however, fishing and hunting is a massive sport/industry worldwide, for that exact reason. Something like 30% of worldwide tourism involves hunting and/or fishing (not sure where exactly I read that, but it was a couple of years ago in one of the fishing magazines I was subscribed to, and I doubt that the statistic would have changed drastically by now).....
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to.
If veganism isn't about the taste of food, then veganism is a self-defeating argument. Food is about the taste of food. It's the most appealing aspect of food. Something that's about food but not about its taste isn't going to garner anything close to a majority following. There are really some very ironic things about vegetarianism and veganism, such as why do vegetarians become vegetarians and then spend half their time trying to mimic the taste of meat using soy. To talk about food but ignore its taste is to ignore why people choose to eat what they eat in the first place. You can't win anyone over with this type of objectivity.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
You should refer to the point about using the line of reasoning that says "they don't feel the same way we do," it's not something you should just brush off because it doesn't suit you. You can't say you're not arguing morality when it's clear you are, and it's clear you think yours is superior.
My point on this goes along with that and isn't that you have to eat meat or can't be vegan, my point is that it's a matter of personal choice that should not involve morals because you can't say "I hold all life in the highest regard" (some do) or anything about life at all, and choose to eat some forms over others because of some ambiguous moral issue. It's said very plainly in that article and a fact of life: human beings survive by eating other living things. Would you tell a bear, which in many ways occupies a similar ecological niche to us humans, to not eat salmon or a sick deer it can catch because it can survive off of plant material? This is ecology and our ancestry, we eat meat (and plants), we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat, and it is a luxury of our modern society that we have the time to argue over the ridiculous notion of the morality of eating meat, not an actual moral issue akin to equality. Now how we obtain our meat is another issue and I am most definitely against factory farming and the massive amount of meat that we eat - we can eat meat, just eat less so we don't have a demand for operations such as factory farms.
hotbreakfast put it in a funny way, but he's not wrong. Pretty much the only living things that exist to be eaten are fruits. Maybe you should only eat fruits and tell me how that goes.
I didnt say I wasn't arguing morality, I am. What your wrong about though is that I think my morality defines me as a superior human being. I care about morals because I believe that they are extremely valuable for individuals and societies, I don't think that I am a superior person . If you want to hear it, I think in many ways I am less valuable than most people.
You say that I shouldn't consider morality when making the personal choice of eating meat or not because I am trying to communicate that "I hold all life in the highest regard" but still eat plants and have weak justification for that. This isn't true however. I don't hold all life in the highest regard. I value my moral assessment of situations, and eating plants is more moral than eating animals. I have tried to explain the reasons for this distinction several times and I will do it again below.
As far as plants go, they literally do not feel pain in the way people define it. They do not have a brain to process any stimulation they can detect and EVEN if they did, they definitely have no ability to emotionally or psychologically respond to a life threatening situation. EVEN if you were to say that plants and animals suffer equally*which is ridiculous*, it takes around 10 human servings of grains to provide 1 portion of meat because of how much grain cows eat so meat eating inarguably incurs more suffering than not eating meat.
You gave a funny example with the bear, and your right, I wouldn't expect a bear to only eat vegetables. ....Bears don't have the ability to interpret right from wrong, they are solely concerned with their survival, the ability to make distinctions between right and wrong is one of the defining characteristics of being human. Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no. I definitely agree that this is a more minor ethical issue than human equality but I don't see that as a reason to not argue or abide by it. Tell me what you think, minus the hateful personal stabs pls?
Fool! You've just activated my trap card!
I didn't make any hateful personal stabs, I merely pointed out your agenda and attitude. You also misquoted and misinterpreted several of my statements as well. I'll use science and a little social tidbit against your morality to prove a point, though I will refrain from a debate on morality itself since it's pointless. I'll just say here that when you say "no" to meat playing a role in our evolution, you reveal that you know absolutely nothing besides this petty moral argument against it.
I never said plants feel pain and we all know they don't because they don't have a nervous system, you really should just stop with the "they're not like us" argument before people start using it mo - well shit, the Tea Party has that covered already. The example of using 10 servings of grain for 1 serving of meat is only for grazers (cows), which are only so inefficient when fed grains in factory farms. If you look at some of the original roles animals played in our agroecosystems, it's vastly different from what we have today, but also quite sustainable. To showcase that, pigs originally ate things such as leftovers and "converted" that into manure and meat while today we feed them grains in factory farms while discarding their manure.
It's a shame you never saw my earlier post about integration of animals into agroecosystems though perhaps I'll elaborate more on it now. Integration of animals back into agroecosystems and as small parts of human diets feeds more people (when compared with land used to feed a vegan diet), cycles nutrients better and more closely mimics that process in a natural ecosystem, and creates opportunities with animals such as chickens for biological pest control as well.
As for the bear example, what would you say to an orca then? Would you call it an animal that can't reason and thus can't tell right from wrong? Then again the fact that you say a bear doesn't know right from wrong reveals your train of thought very well: animals are like us when other people want to kill/eat them, which is against my privileged, affluent Western moral compass, but not like us when they use them as examples against me. Meat is historically a part of our diets, our cultures, our evolution, and commonplace on the original Iron Chef series. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having meat in your diet as long as you eat it sparingly or even in moderation with good choices in the kinds of meat you eat (free range, more poultry, sustainable fisheries). However things such as factory farms are quite appalling indeed, I'm as much against them as you are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
One guy makes a typo and you jump on it, great.
Whats the difference between herbivore and omnivore teeth? The Canines. I highly doubt he meant to type out incisors.
What are canines for? You tell me.
Morphology of teeth is a poor predictor of diet. The length of the GI tract is a far better predictor. Man has a relatively short GI tract compared to herbivores and a relatively long GI tract compared to pure carnivores. Herbivores need a long GI tract to actually digest the nutrients in plant matter because much of the nutrients in plants are locked away in cellulose. Man cannot digest cellulose at all; we lack the compartments for symbiotic bacteria to reside in. We only superficially digest plant matter. Only the easy components such as accessible proteins, starch and sugar is digested, meaning we would have to eat even more plant calories than a comparably sized herbivore to get our daily intake of nutrients. Without modern processing and concentrating of plant matter, veganism would be impossible. Without a massive transportation network to bring in exogenous plant matter, veganism would be impossible because most locally derived plants will not be nutritionally complete, including vitamins, minerals and amino acids. It's only through importing exotic vegetables, massive processing and concentrating of plant matter is veganism possible. Even then, it's nutritionally incomplete without the addition of omega-3 (unless you routinely eat 20lbs of phytoplankton), B12 through yeast extracts or bacterially derived B12.
All signs point to meat being the predominate nutrient in humans with fruits/vegetables/roots/tubers being supplemental to the meat in times of leanness.
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://chestofbooks.com/animals/cats/Guide/images/Skull-of-the-Cat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://chestofbooks.com/animals/horses/Horse/images/The-incisor-teeth-of-an-eight-year-old-horse.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ybig.ie/forum/uploads/20110413_114954_steak_tartare.jpg)
. 
