Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

A forum for respectful discussion & exchange of views on news, current affairs & thought-provoking topics; please read and be aware of the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the News, Current Affairs & Debate subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions relating to news, current affairs, or philosophical & scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 5th February, 2017, 11:58 am

Mawd wrote:Hi, sorry but yes people can fully understand how meatworks will render animals into subsequent parts and still be ok woth eating them. We don't have the same base level of squemishness.
You took my point and completely talked past it with your assumption.

It's about compassion, you truly do not care enough if you are still eating meat on your plate. We have a complex in certain parts of the country; we treat certain animals as our friends and not as our food. Perfect example is a dog--we see them as family members often times, yet we continue to eat fish, chickens, etc. in their presence. It doesn't fundamentally make sense to say you do not like/recognize what animals are going through, yet you continue to eat them. I hope I do not have to continue explaining why this is correct.

Mawd wrote:Stating that we are born hebivores is a bit questionable when we're living off of our parents diet during gestation.

The link between diet and human intelligebce comes from the loss of muscle mass around the jaw and top of the head. If you look at primates, our onmivore cousins, you would notice that they still have the same strong jaw muscles. Looking at how human ancestral skull morphology has changed we notice a general slackenjng of these strong jaw muscles. You also see their implied intelligence increase from having more room for the brain to expand.

Like I have explained to JonathanT88, you are cherry picking your facts to suit your argument and refusing to accept the science for what it is. There are thousands of other studies that argue over the evolution of human brain development, you've only chosen this one because it fits your argument--which I completely understand, but it bears no weight because

1.) It doesn't debunk or attempt to contradict my claims on the physiology of our body relative to herbivores and carnivores; posting a study about the development of the brain has no bearing on the study of how closely physiologically related we are to herbivores.

Mawd wrote:Also saying that because we don't meet that small list of traits omnivores and carnovores are said to have means we can't be natural omnivores is a bit funny. Convergant evolution exists afterall.

Dude, are you even in college? Convergent evolution is a concept that explains why two UNRELATED species may have the same phenotype. HUMANS DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE SAME PHENOTYPES AS CARNIVORES WHEN IT COMES TO DIGESTION, so this premise of convergent biology further debunks your argument.

Mawd wrote:P.s since science is not a monolith it'd probably important to highlight that your knowledge pertains to specific fields after likely taking a wide cut of introductory papers to science. In any case I'm sure more of us would appreciate talking to you if you weren't insufferably parading yourself as an authority.

Actually, my education goes further than a few papers. I take science classes every single quarter at my university, and I conduct research under public health doctors and dietary nutritionists in the field.

Mawd wrote:Also correction, salt, a mineral, is one of our most important seasonings.

Sure, let's all pretend that I said salt was a seasoning? Clearly I did not say this, I said PLANTS are seasonings which is a FACT.

Mawd wrote:Arguing that a baby will pet a bunny and try to eat an apple is an interesting way to go about a weak philosophical argument. Depending on age your pastoral example of a baby may not even recognise the apple.

I don't think it is a weak argument. You've only considered scenarios in which the baby obviously will prove your point right, again you are cherry picking. So, excuse me for being precisely detailed in my explanation of the scenario, but I will do it again for your sake:

If you put a perfectly healthy baby that is capable of making distinctions, and has no health issues in a crib with a bunny and an apple, let me know when it kills the bunny and plays with the apple I think you are in denial, to be honest.

Mawd wrote:Here's an alternate example: the bunny is left scared from having its body pulled at by the baby while the apple is neglected as an interesting toy. This clearly lets me establish that all babies are killers.
.... no pastoral philosphical epithets are not a good way to run a convincung argument.

Again, you are cherry picking to fit your argument. My argument can be spanned across humans, yours is a shift in the conditions of the experiment that will clearly affect the results, that is not science.

Mawd wrote:Anyway from my own experience it is pretty typical for even third year science majors to feel like they run the world after being with the subject for only a few years but do try to be less obnoxious.

Excuse me, but do not disrespect me. If I have been receiving an education in science at the second best public university in my country (which I doubt you have), then I am going to use my education to support my claims. You cannot knock someone for having an education and using it to their advantage or see it as them trying to be superior. It's okay for people to make educated opinions on a subject, do not make it out to be anything else.

Mawd wrote:Actually if we go back to where you said evolution begins with genes, I just want to point out that seeing as our behaviour is influenced by our genes, one could quite easily argue that if humans that used fire or used fire cured meat were at the time more successful than their bretheren then the traits that predisposed them to fire use and fired meat eating would have become more dominant.

I am so sorry, but you are lacking a fundamental understanding of how genes work. There is no gene for "fire making", human intellect and curiously lead us to fire.


Mawd wrote:You can say that it is a more beneficial diet for many of us modern humans to go vegan but to try and argue that historically our evolutionary development has never been aided by or supported meat eating is a bit of a stretch.

How is this a stretch when I have posted studies on the matter, here is more evidence for you:

"Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores. The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores."

This is directly quoted from the National Institute of Health.

Mawd wrote:Anyway as to what effect on ourselves our diets have you've made little mention of how processed the harmful foods are that we eat. If I pointed you to a netflix documentary of my own, Cooked, you'd hear a nutritionist saying that yes you can stay reasonably healthy by eating whatever you want as long as you make it yourself because you will inevitably use less ingredients than the food industry will use, and the foods will be less processed.

In science, there are always going to be differing opinions in every field. I have watched that docuomentary, however, there is evidence that suggests it is no necessarily okay to eat things in moderation and that we should stay away from processed foods altogether. I mean, it even makes sense without the study. Our bodies do not do well with processed foods--we were biologically built to eat what the earth gave us, NOT MEAT, but PLANTS.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Oppression of Animals

Unread postby bluesunstorm » 5th February, 2017, 12:03 pm

GaycrazyBoi wrote:
bluesunstorm wrote:
Pity wrote:I could not give two damns about the "oppression" animals. They are not humans and I see no reason why they should not be used to feed our ever-growing population. Sure, they should not be beaten unnecessarily by food processing employees, but animals are slaughtered because humans eat meat. While a plant diet may be fine with the addition of protein and other vitamin supplements for adults, children need meat to grow up optimally functional. As long as I do not see the animal being killed or processed, I am fine.

Except your premise is incredibly faulty. Nobody needs meat to grow up optimally, that's just a bald-faced lie and outright stupidity. In fact, most Westerners consume too much meat and it's contributing to childhood obesity. Humans are omnivores who can easily get protein and nutrients from plant sources. It's your prerogative if you want to take a nihilistic and unattached approach to it, but it's just stupid and untruthful to say that humans need to kill animals and eat their flesh to survive and be healthy. It's incredibly costly and wasteful to breed and raise animals for food the way the modern meat industry does and to meet the desires of billions of people. It's only going to accelerate climate change more, and it causes or contributes to most food poisoning. Most people aren't going to change, but lies like that need to be quelled.


It's also incredibly unhealthy to engage in homosexual acts, but nobody here wants to mention that.

In all seriousness, obesity isn't just because of meat. It's also because of the over-saturating of our food products with sugar. Nor is eating meat inherently bad for you. And cows produce a lot of methane, which isn't healthy for the environment... So we eat them to cut down methane emission. We slow the climate change, reduce the amount of living things competing for food, preventing overpopulation among animals which would ultimately cause extinction.

Example wrote:I've only ever heard of one ingredient that was only in meats but I forget what it was
my vegan friend said he has to take a pill for it


Maybe Omega-3?

It's not incredibly unhealthy to engage in homosexual acts, in fact lesbianism is least likely to transmit STDs. Anal sex is riskiest because rectal tissue is delicate and semen carries STDs very easily - allowing easy transmission into a person's bloodstream, but these concerns aren't exclusive to homosexual males and it doesn't make male homosexual sex automatically unhealthy. Kind of getting off topic, but eating meat is simply just a choice not a necessity. Animals did completely fine with population balance before humans came about, and breeding animals continuously for food just produces more pollution. The biggest problem is ethical concerns though. Most animals raised for food, in the modern Western world at least, are treated horribly and live in awful conditions. They're given hormones and antibiotics that they don't need, are often fed food that isn't suited to their digestive systems, and are made to live out their lives in cramped slaughterhouses. It's very different from hunter and gatherer times, when at least animals had the chance to live naturally in peace prior to being killed for food or clothing. This is all so unnecessary in the contemporary world.

Humans aren't going to chance their habits for the most part, unfortunately, but I don't think it's radical to at least suggest that people should think about reducing their consumption of animal products for a multitude of reasons.
I loves Kylie Minogue, rainbows, sprinkles, teddy bears, Lisa Frank, Hello Kitty, pop & dance music, and Lindsay Lohan movies.
User avatar
bluesunstorm
Member
 
First name: Casey
Posts: 679
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)

Re: Oppression of Animals

Unread postby PHMED » 5th February, 2017, 12:07 pm

JonathanT88 wrote:No, I'm saying that veganism is objectively morally superior but that your anger doesn't do anything to make people want to change their lifestyles. I don't mean to suggest you're coming across as an egomaniac. I get angry about stuff too, but (from experience) the best way to persuade people is calmly, particularly when you're attacking something which plays a central role in our lives, like diet.

How am I angry? I have yet to call anyone out of their name in this discussion, I have not yelled at anyone either. I don't understand why you're making this up about me, I have been polite this entire time, what anger am I exuding? Because I have a different opinion of yours, is that why you assume me to be angry?

I'm not attacking anyone's diet, I am providing evidence that suggests we are not meant to eat meat, even though we choose to, there is no harm in that. If you're that upset about someone calling you out over your eating habits, maybe you need to have a conversation with yourself and figure out why it upsets you.

This thread is about veganism/oppression of animals, and as you have noticed, vegans are not people you can walk over without a debate. Understand that veganism is activism, and as such, the conversation may turn into a debate, but please do not call me out for someone that is angry, because I am good.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Oppression of Animals

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 5th February, 2017, 12:15 pm

PHMED wrote:
JonathanT88 wrote:No, I'm saying that veganism is objectively morally superior but that your anger doesn't do anything to make people want to change their lifestyles. I don't mean to suggest you're coming across as an egomaniac. I get angry about stuff too, but (from experience) the best way to persuade people is calmly, particularly when you're attacking something which plays a central role in our lives, like diet.

How am I angry? I have yet to call anyone out of their name in this discussion, I have not yelled at anyone either. I don't understand why you're making this up about me, I have been polite this entire time, what anger am I exuding? Because I have a different opinion of yours, is that why you assume me to be angry?

I'm not attacking anyone's diet, I am providing evidence that suggests we are not meant to eat meat, even though we choose to, there is no harm in that. If you're that upset about someone calling you out over your eating habits, maybe you need to have a conversation with yourself and figure out why it upsets you.

This thread is about veganism/oppression of animals, and as you have noticed, vegans are not people you can walk over without a debate. Understand that veganism is activism, and as such, the conversation may turn into a debate, but please do not call me out for someone that is angry, because I am good.


Maybe I misread your tone, I'm not sure. You've been polite, for sure, I just sensed hostility. I think it's easy for passion to be misconstrued as anger towards and opponent, and if that's the case then I apologise. Also, I don't really get upset in debates nor do I have a tendency to feel at all 'targeted' (though some might get MORE defensive when you're criticizing their diet, I feel) I'm just suggesting that the way to convert people is through calm disconnect, rather than suggesting people are in "denial" and asking them whether or not they're "even in college."
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 4971
Likes received: 426
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Example » 5th February, 2017, 2:48 pm

for every study there is a counter study
therefor nothing is real !!!
Image
User avatar
Example
Moderator
 
First name: Kyler
Posts: 2776
Likes received: 435
Joined: 25th April, 2011, 10:25 pm
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada (ca)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby JonathanT88 » 5th February, 2017, 3:32 pm

Example wrote:for every study there is a counter study
therefor nothing is real !!!


Image
Gudrun wrote:

"How many times have I told you? Homosexuality is only to be used for revolutionary purposes!"

Image ImageImage

ImageImageImage
User avatar
JonathanT88
Horny Jonathan of the Homosexual Intifada
 
First name: Jonathan (duh.)
Posts: 4971
Likes received: 426
Joined: 1st June, 2013, 1:19 pm
Location: Scottish Highlands
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Mawd » 6th February, 2017, 1:21 am

JonathanT88 wrote:
Example wrote:for every study there is a counter study
therefor nothing is real !!!


Image


Image

PHMED wrote:Like I have explained to JonathanT88, you are cherry picking your facts to suit your argument and refusing to accept the science for what it is. There are thousands of other studies that argue over the evolution of human brain development, you've only chosen this one because it fits your argument--which I completely understand, but it bears no weight because


I'm not cherry picking, the loss of the saggital crest and the associated amount of muscle mass is an established fact of our human evolution, one that is closely related to the diet of our ancestors at that time. In our earliest known hominid ancestor it was directly linked to heavy chewing. It's a well established theory that by reducing the amount of time required to find, secure, and eat/process food, we freed up time for other pursuits. I.E. our ancestors found more time to socialise and develop culture and communication by switching to foods that were less tough of which meat would have played a part.

You're choosing to ignore this important facet of our evolutionary history precisely to better support your own claims. This explanation of human development is extremely established. You should be learning it in any paper on evolutionary zoology that cares to have a section on the development of humans.

PHMED wrote:1.) It doesn't debunk or attempt to contradict my claims on the physiology of our body relative to herbivores and carnivores; posting a study about the development of the brain has no bearing on the study of how closely physiologically related we are to herbivores.

-----

Dude, are you even in college? Convergent evolution is a concept that explains why two UNRELATED species may have the same phenotype. HUMANS DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE SAME PHENOTYPES AS CARNIVORES WHEN IT COMES TO DIGESTION, so this premise of convergent biology further debunks your argument.


Do you even college bro? :rofl: seriously, if you could refrain from sounding like a condescending jerk that would be for the best.

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches


Yes humans evolved the capacity to render and process meat as part of an omnivorous diet despite not sharing all of the associated traits as carnivores. You'll notice that our close cousins chimpanzees are also rampant omnivores. Which kind of hurts the idea that humans are close herbivores.

If you looked at the definition of a phenotype lately you'd remember how the concept of the Extended Phenotype is also present. This alleges that behaviour caused by genes is also a phenotype. Richard Dawkins commonly used the explanation of a beaver dam being a phenotype of possessing beaver genes.
The fact that humans can process meat for sustenance means that we have some carnivorous traits, our ancestors well documented history of meat eating and well documented evidence of chimpanzee meat consumption supports the idea that we are possessing of carnivorous traits (or rather an extended phenotype) despite the fact that we are not the same as pure carnivores.

I am very important because I take classes of science papers every single quarter of my university semester, and I have a close relationship with active researchers in my chosen fields (-i.e every other science degree)
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:Actually, my education goes further than a few papers. I take science classes every single quarter at my university, and I conduct research under public health doctors and dietary nutritionists in the field.

You just described how any BsC could work. My point is that you likely specialised into certain scientific subjects that do not give you the breadth to weigh into others. Specifically the taxonomy and evolutionary history of humans -as inferred by your responses here.
You almost certainly specialised into health fields after taking general science courses at the 100 level. If you have found any time for Zoology papers it would likely be as interest papers you've used to fulfil points requirements.
This is why I'm saying that you shouldn't be parading yourself as an authority on everything science related that is being discussed here.


Responding to very specious points on why humans are not natural omnivores.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:Sure, let's all pretend that I said salt was a seasoning? Clearly I did not say this, I said PLANTS are seasonings which is a FACT.


As you said earlier to try and prove that humans do not posses carnivore or omnivore characteristics, in your own words:

PHMED wrote:*We don't have fat receptors on our tongue which renders meat TASTELESS to us without seasoning (it is not ironic that seasoning is a plant).


The point is that you excluded one of our most important seasonings to try and fit your case. Salt is arguably our most important seasoning and one very important in bringing flavour to meat and it's not a plant. The important point I'm making is that you didn't say salt was a seasoning. I'm not sure if you misread here. Some plants are used as seasonings, correct. Though I am not sure how that takes away from what I'm calling out here. Nice obnoxious use of FACT though.

PHMED wrote:I don't think it is a weak argument. You've only considered scenarios in which the baby obviously will prove your point right, again you are cherry picking. So, excuse me for being precisely detailed in my explanation of the scenario, but I will do it again for your sake:

If you put a perfectly healthy baby that is capable of making distinctions, and has no health issues in a crib with a bunny and an apple, let me know when it kills the bunny and plays with the apple I think you are in denial, to be honest.

-----

Again, you are cherry picking to fit your argument. My argument can be spanned across humans, yours is a shift in the conditions of the experiment that will clearly affect the results, that is not science.


My entire point is that this philosophical parable of yours is exceedingly arbitrary and only works given specific definitions.
A baby will play with anything that gives it stimulus, without further cognitive development all it has to recognise a food source is a Pavlovian association with it's parents.
I didn't say it was going to kill the bunny in seriousness I said that flippantly, I said that with extreme sarcasm. What I said of the bunny was that it was going to be pulled and treated roughly by the baby. Just like how babies will pull at cats. My point is that a child will not know how to consume either of those food sources. A rabbit is off the table because it involves a complex process, and an apple is off the table because its outer skin is likely too tough for a baby to eat through by itself. As such the only behaviour you are likely to see from a baby when exposed to both is an attempt to play with either.


PHMED wrote:Excuse me, but do not disrespect me. If I have been receiving an education in science at the second best public university in my country (which I doubt you have), then I am going to use my education to support my claims. You cannot knock someone for having an education and using it to their advantage or see it as them trying to be superior. It's okay for people to make educated opinions on a subject, do not make it out to be anything else.


Why are you off the table? You've shown disrespect and condescension to practically everyone who has disagreed with you here.
Here let me show you:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
you truly do not care enough

Authoritative assumption
I hope I do not have to continue explaining why this is correct.

you are cherry picking your facts to suit your argument

ignoring your own cherry picking
which I completely understand

Condescension combined with an authoritative assumption
Dude, are you even in college?

Again, rude.
HUMANS DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE SAME PHENOTYPES AS CARNIVORES WHEN IT COMES TO DIGESTION

Obnoxious all caps whining. Ignoring the shared traits of humans and other omnivores and our closely related chimp cousins.
Actually, my education goes further than a few papers. I take science classes every single quarter at my university, and I conduct research under public health doctors and dietary nutritionists in the field.

Statement designed to make yourself look more credible, it's also an attempt to get people to back off from arguing with you. Combined with
Excuse me, but do not disrespect me. If I have been receiving an education in science at the second best public university in my country (which I doubt you have), then I am going to use my education to support my claims. You cannot knock someone for having an education and using it to their advantage or see it as them trying to be superior. It's okay for people to make educated opinions on a subject, do not make it out to be anything else.


It shows that while you can make any assumption about other's education yours is somehow off limits.

For your information, and because you seem to care about it so much, I also received an education in science. I went to Otago University, one of the top research universities in New Zealand. All of the NZ universities are in the top 3% of Universities globally. Otago is also the second best university in my country, of any in my country -among our top universities we never privatised tertiary education.
I went there for a BsC in Ecology and Marine Science, I took papers in a wide variety of subjects but the important ones I'm drawing on here are 200 and 300 level papers in zoology and ecology.

I would never 'knock' someone for having an education. I will however criticise your poor attitude on receiving one. Your posts come off rudely authoritative and every time you cite your level of education it is used in a transparent attempt to weaken other's arguments.


Frankly I'm tired of you talking down to everyone, its obnoxious intellectual browbeating.
I'm not worried about you criticising our diets or 'calling out' people's eating habits. I'm objecting to your pompous, disrespectful attitude, that is particularly hypocritical when you yourself are so sensitive to being respected.
However I will say again that the way you're coming across is similar to the way some undergrads develop a sense of pompousness after having studied for just several years. Don't worry though, when you grow older and if you ever start working as a TA you'll likely be rolling your eyes at the next crop of officious, self important undergrads you come across.

Where genetics supposedly have no bearing on animal behaviour.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:I am so sorry, but you are lacking a fundamental understanding of how genes work. There is no gene for "fire making", human intellect and curiously lead us to fire.


Again with the pissy attitude. if you had read more carefully or perhaps more charitably you would have realised that I am not saying that there is a gene within humans for 'fire making'. Also your explanation for how we arrived to work with fire is remarkably handwavy.
My point is that there are genes that predispose us to behaviours.
The Dunedin Longitudinal Study is a study of around 1000 people over the past 40 years, it is one of the oldest studies of this type in existence and has led to the publication of over 1200 publications. One that I am referencing here are studies done with the MAOA gene which when present in the right variation in humans and in the right environments is a predictor of increased antisocial behaviour and hostility. While commonly referred to as the 'Warrior gene' what it more closely enables is less predictability of behaviour in changing conditions. People who do not tend to display the increased aggression are more consistent in their behaviour. The reason both levels of the MAOA gene are present are of course complex but they're both valuable in aiding us through stable and changing conditions respectively.
My point here is that there are genes that promote certain human behaviours. It is likely that there is a gene interaction with human tool use, ingenuity, and curiosity, based on the inference that our genes also promote the expression of other behaviours. The intellectual and cultural gulf between seeing fire, using fire, creating fire, and merely taking advantage of things that have been naturally processed by fire likely has something to do with the interactions of various genes and our environment.
Again leading me back to my point that human ancestors that used fire and ate meat were likely more successful than human ancestors that did neither of those things given the long and exceedingly old range of evidence of proto humans using fire and eating meat.
That is to say it must have aided them in their survival given such a long and well documented history of meat and tool (fire) use among different species of proto humans.
The use of meat and more easily exploitable sources of food (made easy by the use of tools) aided in our development as a species.


Where he implies that animals that have adapted to be herbivores cannot also adapt to exploit sources of meat. Also notably absent from his proofs is the existence of omnivores -that is to say if an omnivore does not contain all elements pertaining to carnivores, then it is not supported biologically in eating meat despite having a history of adaptations to do so.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:How is this a stretch when I have posted studies on the matter, here is more evidence for you:

"Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores. The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores."

This is directly quoted from the National Institute of Health.


Actually the reason humans cannot produce their own Vitamin C is because the function that allowed us and allows other groups of old world monkeys to do so was likely knocked out by a retrovirus much earlier in our evolutionary history (around 63mya). The ability to manufacture one's own vitamin c is a common trait across all mammals not just specific to carnovores.

Anyway it's a stretch because of our well documented history as exploitative omnivores. We eat meat and plant matter depending on the circumstances, it's one of our main advantages in our adaptability. We expanded the range of our diets through tool use despite having more common ancestry other primarily herbivorous species. Typically some of our closest biological cousins commonly still exploit both plant and animal sources of foods, even the most herbivorous of monkeys will still exploit the presence of insects as a food source.
Yet tools are not the only things that predispose us to meat eating, as can be seen with chimps they will often use their hands and teeth to strip apart found carcasses as well as using their natural adaptations to hunt other animals. It is clear from observing chimp hunting that adaptations like rending teeth and claws are not required to successfully hunt, kill, and process flesh.
We are not obligate carnivores but we have many adaptations that aid us in consuming meat as a primary source of our diet in accordance with the changing conditions of our environment.


Where "everything in science is contentious except for the points I'm trying to state which have 'clear evidence'"
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:In science, there are always going to be differing opinions in every field. I have watched that docuomentary, however, there is evidence that suggests it is no necessarily okay to eat things in moderation and that we should stay away from processed foods altogether. I mean, it even makes sense without the study. Our bodies do not do well with processed foods--we were biologically built to eat what the earth gave us, NOT MEAT, but PLANTS.


Seeing as it's all supported by the same ecological systems found on earth, by eating animals we do eat what the earth 'gives us'. Note that you're straying quite close to earth anthropomorphism by attributing human characteristics to an inanimate earth which is about as far removed from science as homeopathy.
When we talk about processed foods we're commonly talking about industrial food industry preparation. Meat can come packaged as a pre-processed food (e.g. burgers, sausage, other mashed up conglomerates of meat) as well as in a closer, straight-from-the-animal state (e.g. steak).

Anyway if you are going to try to allege that everyone that disagrees with you is cherry picking studies, that the science of this field is so contrary that nothing is known for certain, and that certain elements of your arguments 'just make sense' even without scientific evidence, please do not act like any your points are protected from the assertions you are using to discredit ours.

You may be correct that the field of nutritional health is heavily contradicting, but many other fields of science that cover the relationship between humans and meat consumption are more established due to the swathe of examples of proto-humans having animal products in their diets.

Like I've said time and time again a diet of heavily processed foods is harmful and I advocate cutting down on our meat consumption because of many environmental, health, financial, costs related to it. Yet to say that we evolved without any traits that support meat eating is a bit of a joke given our long history of exploiting meat as part of our adaptation to a varied diet.


"If you eat animals you don't care or have enough compassion for animals"
[Reveal] Spoiler:
PHMED wrote:It's about compassion, you truly do not care enough if you are still eating meat on your plate. We have a complex in certain parts of the country; we treat certain animals as our friends and not as our food. Perfect example is a dog--we see them as family members often times, yet we continue to eat fish, chickens, etc. in their presence. It doesn't fundamentally make sense to say you do not like/recognize what animals are going through, yet you continue to eat them. I hope I do not have to continue explaining why this is correct.

If I didn't have compassion for animals I wouldn't have studied ecology, conservation, and population management.
Humans have an obligation to act as guardians of the species we have imposed ourselves upon. We have naturalised and altered farm animals particularly to the point that trying to reintroduce them to the wild en masse would cause a whole host of problems related to disease and poor health by trying to mix animals adapted to a wide variety of climates and diseases into homogeneous 'freedom zones' or however else you would manage the systematic release of farm animals from captivity across all nations that practice industrialised farming and consumption of animals. You would see whole swathes die, a trait of life that was already set to occur, ideally with far less suffering granted by a quicker time to kill in a factory meat works.
I've spent a lot of time around animals raised for consumption, my boyfriend's family farms chicken and keeps sheep on their plot. Both animals actually provide a welcome role to the ecology of their region by trampling up and churning the earth in their search for food as well as managing various pest species of plants and animals. When the individual animals are starting to wear down they're picked out and shot which is remarkably swifter than having an animal waste away from age related disease. We also treat the animals well and grow fond of them.

However I would not call most animals friends. That would require a certain amount of personification and projection to do so.

Related, I also support people's right to die as a function of compassion for those who are unduly affected by chronic illness, injury, or disease that prevents them from living a healthy life.
The problem with the animal industry most of us have is animal cruelty which is a function of how they live and how they die, that is how we express our compassion with the wish that they live well and die swiftly.

Anyway as someone who was trained in population management and the protection of biodiversity I am all for the wholesale eradication of pest species no matter how charismatic they are in order to reduce the impact they have upon other species I place a higher priority upon.

Most people sponsor the eradication of the malaria virus and the malaria mosquito if their deaths meant that less people would suffer from one of the world's worst diseases.
More commonly in New Zealand I value our unique range of birds, plants, insects, and lizards enough to sponsor the eradication of possums, rats, feral cats, mice, stoats, weasels, and so on from our territory.

Also I'll repeat that the farming of animals and their byproducts is needed in some amount to support crucial materials used in medicine and agriculture. Keeping animals on land also aids in soil rejuvenation by breaking up the dead plant matter and giving more room for younger plants to grow as well as soil mineral fertilisation.


Anyway in future I will not be replying in such volume.
I consider most of my points explained and as or if you continue to wave them off as cherry picking cases I will simply roll my eyes as you continue to ignore significant criticism to your assertions.
Conversations that get this long fast become conversations of attrition.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7344
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby ConnorM » 8th February, 2017, 1:16 am

PHMED wrote:It's about compassion, you truly do not care enough if you are still eating meat on your plate. We have a complex in certain parts of the country; we treat certain animals as our friends and not as our food. Perfect example is a dog--we see them as family members often times, yet we continue to eat fish, chickens, etc. in their presence. It doesn't fundamentally make sense to say you do not like/recognize what animals are going through, yet you continue to eat them. I hope I do not have to continue explaining why this is correct.

I have a couple of points to make. First of all, if we're going on about how we "aren't meant to eat meat" or whatnot biologically, well, we're also not meant to eat grain grasses. We aren't ruminants, obviously. We don't have four chambered stomachs, and we don't constantly grow teeth to replace worn out ones. Indeed, until the invention of the windmill for milling grain into finer powder, and the ability to grow wheat in areas where it was previously unavailable, teeth would literally be "ground down" by simple, mostly vegetarian diets over time. Now of course, there is significant evidence that these people ate butter - which is a fantastic source of fat and calories for an otherwise lacking diet - but, being as this is well before the invention of veganism, I'll count it as vegetarian. So, humans aren't designed to eat grains, indeed, we created all of the major grain grasses, except rice, which was less modified by selective horticulture than wheat, or rye, or millet, or buckwheat, or oats, or corn, which comprised the majority of post-agrarian revolution pre-industrial diets. So what does it matter that we've only been eating meat for 300,000 years or so when we've only been eating grains - which comprise much, if not most, of our diets, for the majority of people in the world - for about 10,000 years? We've been eating meat for at least 30 times longer than we've been eating grains, yet you don't seem to be against the eating of grain as "unnatural".

Now, here's my real question; if everyone stops eating meat, who's going to pay for the meat animals' food? A head of cattle, according to Utah State University, costs about $300-$400 per annum. Now, consider that there are approximately 89,500,000 heads of cattle in the US, alone (The number varies by year, I'm using 2014 statistics). That works out to about $31,000,000,000 per year just to feed the cattle. Who's going to pay for that, without a meat industry? And what about chickens? The breeds of chicken that are used as meat birds often cannot stand on their own - they would be trapped and helpless regardless of their situation as meat birds. And egg layers are going to lay eggs so long as they are given proper food and water, every 24 -26 hours, for about 5 years, no matter what. What do you do with all of the meat birds? Let them starve? Cull them to take them out of their misery? And does that make you a hypocrite if you do?

I have never come across an argument for veganism that wasn't a self-righteous appeal to emotions. There is no disadvantage to me eating the eggs that my chickens lay. It provides the vitamin b12 that is lacking in plant-based diets, and the chickens are always going to lay eggs. Further, I know where my meat comes from, I've raised farm animals, thank you, and I'm fine with it. Do I believe that farm animals out to be treated with decency? Of course. Do I care that they are slaughtered for their meat? No. If it weren't for their meat, they would not exist. And no one is going to pay the $31 billion or more to feed all of your precious animals if there is no meat or dairy industry. We feed the cows and the chickens, and then they feed us.
Image
User avatar
ConnorM
Sir Conor the Incompetent
 
Posts: 422
Likes received: 98
Joined: 14th December, 2013, 11:21 pm
Location: NY
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Far East

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Lachie » 8th February, 2017, 4:49 am

Unfortunately vegan diets aren't always viable options for everyone. Socioeconomic status isn't the only thing that effects whether someone can have a vegan diet. Despite the foods that AB posted having moderately high protein, a cup of soy beans still has half as much protein as a cup of chicken breast. For someone like me who's 6 feet tall and incredibly underweight, eating a vegan diet would be significantly more work. This, and if I chose to be vegan I would be impacting what the rest of my family eats as well. Despite this, I do believe a vegan/vegetarian diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet in the long term, but I don't believe humans are herbivorous by evolutionary standards.

Also, Correct me if I'm wrong, but humans can't digest cellulose like every ACTUAL herbivore can. Herbivores usually cannot chew or digest any meat. To me claiming that humans are "supposed" to be herbivores is sorta... dumb. Herbivores do not have the ability to eat meat. Carnivores do not have the ability to eat plant matter. Humans have the ability to eat PARTS of both without any instant staggering negative health impacts. Some meats can have negative health impacts, just as some plant matter can.

But that's just my humble opinion :awesome:
Lachie
New Member
 
First name: Lachie
Posts: 18
Likes received: 3
Joined: 7th December, 2016, 8:38 am
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Team: The Wild West

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Anonymous Boy » 8th February, 2017, 12:39 pm

Lachie wrote:Unfortunately vegan diets aren't always viable options for everyone. Socioeconomic status isn't the only thing that effects whether someone can have a vegan diet. Despite the foods that AB posted having moderately high protein, a cup of soy beans still has half as much protein as a cup of chicken breast. For someone like me who's 6 feet tall and incredibly underweight, eating a vegan diet would be significantly more work.

If you're underweight, what you need to correct that problem isn't protein; it's calories. Eating highly protein-rich foods just to meet your protein requirements is only going to worsen the problem, because it enables you to meet your protein requirements without meeting your calorie requirementswhich is a bad thing.

A reasonable varied plant-based diet that is not calorie-deficient will also satisfy your protein needs.

100 g of chicken breast contains about 27 g of protein while providing only 169 calories. (WolframAlpha)
100 g of peanuts contains about 25 g of protein while providing 560 calories. (WolframAlpha)

As someone who is underweight and (from the sound of it) suffering from low appetite, you may actually find that switching your main source of protein from low-calorie meat products to high-calorie nuts and seeds (which can provide virtually the same amount of protein) will not make things much harder, while enabling you to meet your calorie needs, which are currently unmet.

(Note that peanuts are just one example of a protein-rich food that could be part of a good plant-based diet; obviously if you just ate a tonne of peanuts every day, that would lead to other nutrient deficiencies, and this is true for any food, which is why a varied diet is important.)
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Anonymous Boy
Owner/Administrator
 
First name: René
Posts: 16139
Likes received: 224
Joined: 20th December, 2007, 10:42 pm
Location: South Yorkshire
Country: Netherlands (nl)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby AlexAkri » 9th February, 2017, 2:40 am

At the end of the day, it is a proven fact that humans do not need meat to survive. I'm pretty sure we all understand that anyway. I'm a meat eater whom has been brought up in a family of meat eaters. I am not ready to eliminate meat from my diet and I may never conclude to becoming a vegetarian or vegan in my lifetime. But, Not only can we benefit our bodies by not eating meat, but even our square teeth replicate that of many herbivore creatures. Even as far back as the dinosaurs. Which theoretically proves that we were never meat eaters to begin with.
Also, As stated in many comments, producing meat is harmful to the environment, which isn't very helpful for the people who work to sustain the environment and improve it. I have also been exposed to the animal abuse that goes on behind the scenes and it's absolutely appalling to see someone treat an innocent animal so brutally just for human demand. many people know this but they decide to block out how inhumanly the animals are treated in order so that people can excuse themselves for being meat eaters. We do not need to kill other living creatures for food. We have developed our conscious mind over thousands of years and it's time people understand that even though most of us don't physically kill these animals, we know how they end up on our plate. The only reason why their are meat eating animals that inhabit this earth, is because they haven't developed a conscious mind that humans have gained over thousands of years to understand that killing another creature is subconsciously someone's insecurity to feel dominant over another species. Animals don't know right from wrong, rather they rely on their instincts to prey on other animals for food. We are humans, our instincts are useless because we can decide with our conscious mind.
By the way, This is not a criticism to meat eaters because that would make me a hypocrite, but I'm only trying to educate people on this topic because It pains me to see vegans get shut off by others because of a simple life choice they made, when really their only trying to seperate themselves from being a part of the brutality that these animals are put through.
AlexAkri
New Member
 
First name: Alexander
Posts: 14
Likes received: 1
Joined: 8th January, 2017, 4:57 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Togetik » 9th February, 2017, 4:05 am

Can we just... stop the weird ideas that humans are herbivorous and the like? Humanity's ancestors were eating meat a long, long time ago and although we're not carnivores by any stretch of the imagination we're definitely omnivores and have been for the entirety of our species' existence.

We've reached a point in advancement where some of us are capable of living on pure plant diets ("capable" might not be the wrong word, since almost everyone technically can, it's just availability and monetary concerns that exclude people) but this isn't our "natural state" or inherently healthier than any diet containing meat.
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 543
Likes received: 81
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby AlexAkri » 9th February, 2017, 6:35 am

Togetik wrote:Can we just... stop the weird ideas that humans are herbivorous and the like? Humanity's ancestors were eating meat a long, long time ago and although we're not carnivores by any stretch of the imagination we're definitely omnivores and have been for the entirety of our species' existence.

We've reached a point in advancement where some of us are capable of living on pure plant diets ("capable" might not be the wrong word, since almost everyone technically can, it's just availability and monetary concerns that exclude people) but this isn't our "natural state" or inherently healthier than any diet containing meat.


Well if you look at evolution, we were originally herbivores. We became meat eaters through suffering from starvation when the climate killed the surrounding vegetation through possible droughts, severe weather etc., which forced our ancestors to hunt and prey on animals as their last option in order for their survival.
Now in the 21st century, We are not starving especially in these 1st world countries. We have an unlimited supply of all types of food. Animals can once again be erased from our diet because we live in a fortunate environment where the grocery store is across the road. And by the way, if you haven't realized already, it is determined that being a non-meat eater is definitely a healthier lifestyle for everyone. Anyway I'm just trying to make you understand my point of view. You do what you do, and I'll believe what I think is right :)
AlexAkri
New Member
 
First name: Alexander
Posts: 14
Likes received: 1
Joined: 8th January, 2017, 4:57 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Mawd » 9th February, 2017, 8:06 am

AlexAkri wrote:Well if you look at evolution, we were originally herbivores. We became meat eaters through suffering from starvation when the climate killed the surrounding vegetation through possible droughts, severe weather etc., which forced our ancestors to hunt and prey on animals as their last option in order for their survival.


That's a huge reach. Also to imply it was our ancestors 'last option' is to imply a set of morals that simply didn't exist then.

Also we were still likely omnivores seeing as many of our closely related species still live on a diet that includes insects and random sources of meat. We're descended from opportunists because it made us fitter.
Mawd
Appearing to Disappear; Community Ambassador
 
First name: Max
Posts: 7344
Likes received: 111
Joined: 6th March, 2011, 5:37 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Togetik » 9th February, 2017, 10:12 am

AlexAkri wrote:Well if you look at evolution, we were originally herbivores. We became meat eaters through suffering from starvation when the climate killed the surrounding vegetation through possible droughts, severe weather etc., which forced our ancestors to hunt and prey on animals as their last option in order for their survival.


Uh, this doesn't really align with the fossil record much, while meat may not have been a huge part of our ancestor's diets as a whole (Obviously some species would've been more carnivorous than others, like modern apes) but evidence of it's presence in the diets of our ancestors has been present up to 2.5 million years ago, as far as i'm aware.

I'm not sure what event you're talking about though, is there a specific event we know about that killed off all the vegetation? We'd have to be capable of consuming meat prior to this event, considering you can't just gain all the bodily functions required to digest meat over plant matter in the amount of time that this event'd occur over.

I also find it... a little hard to swallow that during an event occuring over enough time to force a drastic change of food source that it'd be efficient to eat meat at all? Removal of vegetation in the food chain kind of causes the opposite effect, where the herbivores just die off and the predators breifly thrive before too dying off- because if there's nothing for herbivores to eat, they'll die and then there'll be nothing for the predators to eat? The idea we'd be able to evolve to fill a drastically different (and already filled) ecological niche that's rapidly dwindling in food seems kind of off?

AlexAkri wrote:Now in the 21st century, We are not starving especially in these 1st world countries. We have an unlimited supply of all types of food. Animals can once again be erased from our diet because we live in a fortunate environment where the grocery store is across the road. And by the way, if you haven't realized already, it is determined that being a non-meat eater is definitely a healthier lifestyle for everyone. Anyway I'm just trying to make you understand my point of view. You do what you do, and I'll believe what I think is right :)


Uh, not really? A purely vegetarian diet can be unhealthy, and a diet containing meat can be perfectly healthy, It just depends on what you're eating and how much.

You're right that for the most part in first world countries we're capable of, and free to, cut animal products out of our diets and gain all the nutrients and vitamins our bodies need from them (Although you should always make sure your vegetarian/vegan diets do contain these, since some things more prevalent in meats are uncommon in plant matter)
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 543
Likes received: 81
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby bluesunstorm » 13th February, 2017, 7:17 pm

Togetik wrote:Can we just... stop the weird ideas that humans are herbivorous and the like? Humanity's ancestors were eating meat a long, long time ago and although we're not carnivores by any stretch of the imagination we're definitely omnivores and have been for the entirety of our species' existence.

We've reached a point in advancement where some of us are capable of living on pure plant diets ("capable" might not be the wrong word, since almost everyone technically can, it's just availability and monetary concerns that exclude people) but this isn't our "natural state" or inherently healthier than any diet containing meat.

Aren't we the only primates that consume meat? We can consume meat, but it's pretty hard on our digestive systems overall. It often causes/majorly contributes to constipation, contributes to obesity, and we have to cook it thoroughly to fight off microbial threats, unlike carnivores and other omnivores. Cooking methods and ingredients in meat may often also be carcinogenic to humans. Some humans may be able to handle meat better than other, but overall, it's consumed way too much. Most people get way too much protein in Western countries, and the same pattern is happening in developing countries. From a personal standpoint, my digestion and health vastly improved when I stopped eating meat.
I loves Kylie Minogue, rainbows, sprinkles, teddy bears, Lisa Frank, Hello Kitty, pop & dance music, and Lindsay Lohan movies.
User avatar
bluesunstorm
Member
 
First name: Casey
Posts: 679
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th February, 2013, 4:32 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby Togetik » 14th February, 2017, 3:19 am

bluesunstorm wrote:Aren't we the only primates that consume meat? We can consume meat, but it's pretty hard on our digestive systems overall. It often causes/majorly contributes to constipation, contributes to obesity, and we have to cook it thoroughly to fight off microbial threats, unlike carnivores and other omnivores. Cooking methods and ingredients in meat may often also be carcinogenic to humans. Some humans may be able to handle meat better than other, but overall, it's consumed way too much. Most people get way too much protein in Western countries, and the same pattern is happening in developing countries. From a personal standpoint, my digestion and health vastly improved when I stopped eating meat.


Almost all modern primates eat meat, but there's a lot of variation of meat being whatever portion of their diets. Chimpanzees and Bonobo eat meat all the time, and even actively hunt for it, even if the bigger portion of their diet is plant matter while Gorillas seem to eat almost exclusively plant matter, though it's likely that they eat some meat sometimes too. The vast majority of monkeys are omnivores but availability and their position on the food chain means they generally eat more fruits nuts and seeds than they do meat, although insects do make up big portions of some species' diets.

A lot of what we'd consider obligate herbivores are known to eat meat if it's available, it turns out deer eat birds a lot more than you'd think when presented with a bird/chick that's available to be eaten.

I think the issue lies a lot more with a diet containing cooked meat with western modern human's immune systems not built for raw meat, the relatively weak immune systems of the livestock animals we eat (That allow for carrying of disease/microbial life, even if raw meat in general IS a big breeding ground for bacteria) as well as the actual animals we're eating- A modern cow is the result of thousands of years of breeding and engineering to try and get the fattest animal as possible as fast as possible. Their meat is completely different in fat content ect than any wild animal that's ever been on the plate of our ancestors.

There's also the issue of availability, omnivores generally don't eat meat and plant matter an equal amount, as meat takes a lot more energy to get and is a lot less abundant. It in turn is generally a bigger and better source of dietary needs (Or in the case of the kinds of nutrients humanity needed to grow larger and larger brains, the only suitable source). This leads to a lifestyle where plant matter makes up a baseline food source with bursts of meat as it's available supplimenting this food source. Over time, as we've been better at getting more meat more regularly, it's made up a larger and larger portion of our diet (As well as it allowing for larger brains).

I don't really think meat is "too taxing" or anything on our digestive system, we can digest meat fine, it's just a lack of fibre and eating too much meat that causes issues with our bodies. I mean, most things in excess causes issues
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 543
Likes received: 81
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 16th February, 2017, 12:47 pm

Mawd wrote:I'm not cherry picking, the loss of the saggital crest and the associated amount of muscle mass is an established fact of our human evolution, one that is closely related to the diet of our ancestors at that time. In our earliest known hominid ancestor it was directly linked to heavy chewing. It's a well established theory that by reducing the amount of time required to find, secure, and eat/process food, we freed up time for other pursuits. I.E. our ancestors found more time to socialise and develop culture and communication by switching to foods that were less tough of which meat would have played a part.

You're choosing to ignore this important facet of our evolutionary history precisely to better support your own claims. This explanation of human development is extremely established. You should be learning it in any paper on evolutionary zoology that cares to have a section on the development of humans.

Please refrain from confusing people who are reading this thread. Human brain developmental theory is well developed in MULTIPLE areas of science, there is not one theory that solely fits the ENTIRE claim of the reason for a large brain in humans. Which is exactly why you are CHERRY-PICKING a SPECIFIC THEORY THAT IS PANNING IN YOUR FAVOR. There are an immense amount of theories that support the evolution of a humans brain: these theories range from CLIMATE, ECOLOGY, and SOCIAL INTERACTION! There is no fundamental theory of human brain development, and it sure as hell does not include the consumption of meat!


Mawd wrote:Do you even college bro? :rofl: seriously, if you could refrain from sounding like a condescending jerk that would be for the best.

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches

This is exactly what I said, I do not need a definition--you are posting it as if I have misused it in another context. I have clearly been saying this whole time that HUMANS DO NOT SHARE ANY PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THAT OF CARNIVORES, ESPECIALLY THAT RELATED TO DIGESTION! You and I both understand that the humans are not the same species as that of different carnivores, but what physical traits do we share with them? Is it the intestinal tract? NO. Is it the pH of our stomach acid? No. Is it our teeth? NO. Is it the way we sweat? NO. Is it the amount of time we take to digest food? NO. Is it the protein receptors on our tongue? Hell no! I don't understand how you can ignore all of this evidence, yet find reason to believe we share physical traits with carnivores.

Mawd wrote:Yes humans evolved the capacity to render and process meat as part of an omnivorous diet despite not sharing all of the associated traits as carnivores.

But you're not stating which traits! WHAT TRAITS? What traits do we share that are exclusive to carnivores? If you could list some biological digestive traits that we share that are exclusive to carnivores, I will be convinced. I will wait.

Also, chimps eat only an average of 3% meat in their diets--if they eat too much meat, they will get sick. Meat eating is not at all necessary for a chimp. Species that are designed to eat meat can sustain levels of meat eating at incredibly high levels and not fall ill to the nutritional composition of the meat.
Mawd wrote:The point is that you excluded one of our most important seasonings to try and fit your case. Salt is arguably our most important seasoning and one very important in bringing flavour to meat and it's not a plant. The important point I'm making is that you didn't say salt was a seasoning. I'm not sure if you misread here. Some plants are used as seasonings, correct. Though I am not sure how that takes away from what I'm calling out here. Nice obnoxious use of FACT though.

I don't need to exclude salt to fit my case, nor did I do it intentionally. Do not assume things about my argument. Both carnivores and herbivores have salt receptors on their tongues, salt is fundamental to all animals, especially mammals. Just because their is salt in meat, it doesn't mean it is okay to eat the meat for that sake. The salt content in raw meat is negligible to the salt content that we, humans, put on our meat while we are seasoning our food during the cooking process. There are only about 45 milligrams of sodium in cooked meat without added salt, this is not the average amount of sodium humans are eating today, I can tell you that right now. When salt is added to meat as a seasoning, it loads on an average of an extra 1,500 milligrams. This is an OVERLOAD to your sensory glands and is quite excessive.

And I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you have said due to time constraints and productivity of discussion.
Last edited by PHMED on 17th February, 2017, 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animtals (merged)

Unread postby PHMED » 16th February, 2017, 1:37 pm

ConnorM wrote:I have a couple of points to make. First of all, if we're going on about how we "aren't meant to eat meat" or whatnot biologically, well, we're also not meant to eat grain grasses.

An herbivorous species is not a species that solely engages in the consumption of grass.

ConnorM wrote:We aren't ruminants, obviously. We don't have four chambered stomachs, and we don't constantly grow teeth to replace worn out ones.

Animals that have four-chambered stomachs do so for the sake of breaking down cellulose. Humans are incapable of digesting cellulose but that doesn't mean we cannot use cellulose. Cellulose is very important for humans. Cellulose is part of the material called "fiber" that dieticians and nutritionists have identified as useful in moving food through the digestive tract quickly and efficiently. You can easily find fiber in fruits and vegetables.


ConnnorM wrote:Indeed, until the invention of the windmill for milling grain into finer powder, and the ability to grow wheat in areas where it was previously unavailable, teeth would literally be "ground down" by simple, mostly vegetarian diets over time. Now of course, there is significant evidence that these people ate butter - which is a fantastic source of fat and calories for an otherwise lacking diet - but, being as this is well before the invention of veganism, I'll count it as vegetarian. So, humans aren't designed to eat grains, indeed, we created all of the major grain grasses, except rice, which was less modified by selective horticulture than wheat, or rye, or millet, or buckwheat, or oats, or corn, which comprised the majority of post-agrarian revolution pre-industrial diets. So what does it matter that we've only been eating meat for 300,000 years or so when we've only been eating grains - which comprise much, if not most, of our diets, for the majority of people in the world - for about 10,000 years? We've been eating meat for at least 30 times longer than we've been eating grains, yet you don't seem to be against the eating of grain as "unnatural".

I am so sorry, but this is just plain ignorance and I feel very sad for you. You are using time lines as an argument to convince others that certain foods are better than others. I am deeply saddened by this.

But I will simply say this: Humans have amylase, which breaks down starchy foods. Grains are very starchy, and we are well equipped to break this nutrient-dense foods down. Grains contain fiber, vitamin E, vitamin B, calcium, magnesium, potassium, selenium, copper, zinc, iron, and manganese and help fight cellulite--these are all essential nutrients that you will never find in meat. Meat contains so few vitamins and much more cholesterol, salt, blood, mucus, etc. that are a lot more harmful to our bodies than a grain you believe to be "indigestible".


ConnorM wrote:Now, here's my real question; if everyone stops eating meat, who's going to pay for the meat animals' food? A head of cattle, according to Utah State University, costs about $300-$400 per annum. Now, consider that there are approximately 89,500,000 heads of cattle in the US, alone (The number varies by year, I'm using 2014 statistics). That works out to about $31,000,000,000 per year just to feed the cattle. Who's going to pay for that, without a meat industry? And what about chickens? The breeds of chicken that are used as meat birds often cannot stand on their own - they would be trapped and helpless regardless of their situation as meat birds. And egg layers are going to lay eggs so long as they are given proper food and water, every 24 -26 hours, for about 5 years, no matter what. What do you do with all of the meat birds? Let them starve? Cull them to take them out of their misery? And does that make you a hypocrite if you do?

I do not know the answer to these questions, but it would be gregat to find out. I can only voice my opinion based off of Sea World:

Sea World has announced that they will stop putting on whale performance shows. This is contingent upon the death of the whales. I will say the same about the animal agriculture industry. They can hypothetically announce that they will stop exploiting and murdering animals, contingent upon the expiration of those resources. There are about 59 million animals killed each year in the slaughterhouses and used for human consumption. The average meat eater on the planet will consume about 7,000 animals in their lifetime. Using these averages and multiplying it by the human population on earth (7,000 * 7,000,000,000), we get 4.9*10^13 consumed animals in a lifetime. That is a factor of four times greater. That exceeds the number of animals killed per year. With these numbers, I can say just let people eat them until they run out.

Besides my opinion, I am sure there are other solutions that I have no investigated myself.

ConnorM wrote:I have never come across an argument for veganism that wasn't a self-righteous appeal to emotions.

You must have not read anything whatsoever in this thread because if you did, you would understand how ridiculous this statement is:

*Animal agriculture accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, while transportation is only responsible for 13% of that.

*Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

*Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

*Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.

*Methane has a globing warming potential of 86 times that of carbon dioxide over a20-year period and cows produce over 150 billion gallons of methane a day.

*Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 35-76 trillion gallons annually.

Veganism is more than the animals. It is the health of us and the health of our planet.

ConnorM wrote:There is no disadvantage to me eating the eggs that my chickens lay. It provides the vitamin b12 that is lacking in plant-based diets, and the chickens are always going to lay eggs.

There is plenty of disadvantage to your health when you consume meat and animal protein, read the china study. Casein is a protein found in animals and it is directly associated with cancer; you're also putting on loads of cholesterol, and saturated fats that are not at all good for your body. If you do not care for your body, then I respect that but at least I can provide you with the evidence.

Further, I know where my meat comes from, I've raised farm animals, thank you, and I'm fine with it. Do I believe that farm animals out to be treated with decency? Of course. Do I care that they are slaughtered for their meat? No. If it weren't for their meat, they would not exist. And no one is going to pay the $31 billion or more to feed all of your precious animals if there is no meat or dairy industry. We feed the cows and the chickens, and then they feed us.[/quote

ConnorM wrote:If it weren't for their meat, they would not exist.

:rofl:

You know, you're a smart guy there's no denying that. You are capable of having a conversation, I don't think you come off as someone that is not smart. But do you really believe that the torture in which these animals go through--where they never get to see the light of day at times, are shoved into tiny cages, beaten, taken away from their families, etc. is existence? Let's do the same to you and see if you like existing.
PHMED
Member
 
Posts: 97
Likes received: 4
Joined: 15th November, 2016, 9:32 pm
Location: Westwood, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Veganism/Oppression of Animals (merged)

Unread postby freakism » 16th February, 2017, 6:38 pm

Not all animals are kept in cages and 'tortured' as you put it. Free range, quite often organic, meat and animal produce allow animals to live comfortable lives, undoubtedly more pleasant than any potential life they might have in the wild. Personally I wouldn't eat any produce that I know to have been farmed in such grim conditions created by factory farming - although I am certain that at points in my life I have unfortunately eaten meat, dairy produce or eggs created from such conditions.

If meat is obtained through the hunting of wild animals, is this more acceptable? Despite mankind having rather more advanced methods, we became a predator. The evolution of our species to be able to use tools led us towards this. If an animal lives a natural life, in the wild, and then I kill it to consume it surely there is little difference to if another predator killed it.

I feel that it is difficult to ignore the fact that humans have a long history of eating meat. Whether we have genetically evolved to consume and process this (which I believe there is a certain body of evidence for) is almost beside the point: we have evolved culturally as well. Across the world practically every culture consumes meat, eggs, dairy produce. Clothing, and for millennia also light and a wealth of products like soap have all been created from animals.Humans have evolved for us to be able to think at a higher level than any other creature that we know of. Thus we can consider whether it is ethical to kill another creature for our benefit. But what do these creatures in turn do? Deer eat the bark off of trees (and the occasional bird, apparently) which, with the tree losing its protective "skin", often causes rotting and death. Birds pick at insects and worms, taking them to their young. Lions hunt and devour gazelle as a group. These animals do what they need to survive and pass on their genes. Are we not merely doing the same, based on what we have gained over the millennia? Why is this wrong?

Also, your arguments about certain chemicals causing cancer: starchy foods have recently been found to contribute towards cancer. A certain prevalence of carbohydrates in the diet can lead to obesity and diabetes. Fat contributes towards obesity little, as it is so difficult to break down (hence why it is difficult to lose weight), instead it is the basic sugars - obtained from fruits, vegetables and plant based matter - that are stored as fat in our bodies and cause blood sugar levels to rise. No food is perfect, for every problem that meat can contribute towards I can almost guarantee that there will be a plant based one to match it.

Separately, please can I remind you that your condescending attitude and tone does not help you make your point. This sub-forum is a place for courteous discussion. I know that at times others have displayed a similar attitude towards you in this thread, but I have seen it from you rather more consistently - you make some interesting points but these often feel undermined by the way you write down to others. Please take the time to read through what you have written and consider whether you are expressing yourself in the best way before you press submit.
GTF House Cup 2016 - Team Middle Earth
User avatar
freakism
Head tllt boy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
First name: Harry
Posts: 504
Likes received: 132
Joined: 13th June, 2016, 12:44 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Team: The Far East

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 40 guests