View Full Version : Humans, biological omnivores?
Got an interesting e-mail, thus i thought i'd share,
We're omnivore by behavior, not by biological build, function, or design.
* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
* Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
* Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
* Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
* Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
* Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
* Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 10:18 AM
I believe that the human body was originally designed to graze.
But name me one fruit or veggie as delicious as a medium rare prime rib?
I presume many members of this board are now converted to vegetarianism!
I believe that the human body was originally designed to graze.
You believe that God designed the human to be a grazing creature?
But name me one fruit or veggie as delicious as a medium rare prime rib?
Taste is subjective, question is pointless.
I presume many members of this board are now converted to vegetarianism!
I wouldn't think so myself, tis just interesting given how many folks harp on about the fact that we have canine teeth and thus are made to eat meat.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 11:59 AM
You believe that God designed the human to be a grazing creature?Isn't that what you said?
I was Just agreeing with you?
Isn't that what you said?
I was Just agreeing with you?
Just making sure...cus like if it was in gods design for use to be vegitairain, and you believe in god, then you believe that god wanted man to be veggie, and yet your not. =/
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 12:09 PM
Just making sure...cus like if it was in gods design for use to be vegitairain, and you believe in god, then you believe that god wanted man to be veggie, and yet your not. =/At one time we ran around naked and live in caves also.
At one time we ran around naked and live in caves also.
Indeedy, and in some aspects we got more civilised, build homes, wearing clothes ect, and in other aspects we got more savage, like murdering and eating the flesh of animals.
.... and in other aspects we got more savage, like murdering and eating the flesh of animals.
Your opinion based on what moral/ethical philosophy?
Your opinion based on what moral/ethical philosophy?
Application of the golden rule.
Application of the golden rule.
Okie doke. So, based on that and the verbage you chose for this thread, I gather that you believe that those who interpret the golden rule differently than you or do not believe in the golden rule are morally inferior.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 01:22 PM
Indeedy, and in some aspects we got more civilised, build homes, wearing clothes ect, and in other aspects we got more savage, like murdering and eating the flesh of animals.Some may disagree with you and believe animal flesh to be a better and more efficient source of protein.
Or does your beliefs and opinions take precedence over that of the majority which dissagrees with you?
Okie doke. So, based on that and the verbage you chose for this thread, I gather that you believe that those who interpret the golden rule differently than you or do not believe in the golden rule are morally inferior.
Morally inferior? I guess so, just like everyone does.
Morally inferior? I guess so, just like everyone does.
Interesting. "Everyone does" is quite the generalization!
Some may disagree with you and believe animal flesh to be a better and more efficient source of protein.
Or does your beliefs and opinions take precedence over that of the majority which dissagrees with you?
They take precedence for me, which is all i have control over, and thus all i really concern myself with.
Interesting. "Everyone does" is quite the generalization!
...you don't think that everyone sees others as being less moral?
...you don't think that everyone sees others as being less moral?
No, I don't ... I'm not that arrogant. Don't bother fabricating some extreme hypothetical circumstance in an attempt to denigrate my little statement. I have neither the time nor the patience for that little game. Let's just say that I am more of the philosophy of Shaw with some leanings toward Kant/Nietzsche/Russell.
One could make the argument that if your statement were true then there would be no feelings of guilt that some experience when they believe they have violated their own principles or moral philosophy. It would be far easier to merely adjust that morality to allow for their actions. In fact, some folks do exactly that!
No, I don't ... I'm not that arrogant. Don't bother fabricating some extreme hypothetical circumstance in an attempt to denigrate my little statement. I have neither the time nor the patience for that little game. Let's just say that I am more of the philosophy of Shaw with some leanings toward Kant/Nietzsche/Russell.
One could make the argument that if your statement were true then there would be no feelings of guilt that some experience when they believe they have violated their own principles or moral philosophy. It would be far easier to merely adjust that morality to allow for their actions. In fact, some folks do exactly that!
So you don't judge the morality of others? Ever? Then how do you follow a moral code?
Lets say you believe that you should wait until after marriage to have sex, and that is a moral principle of yours. And if all of your mates were having sex out of marriage then you would naturally consider that immoral, whether or not you would speak out about it.
Its pretty simple really, everyone who believes they have morals automatically judge the morals of others by having morals themselves.
So you don't judge the morality of others? Ever? Then how do you follow a moral code?
Lets say you believe that you should wait until after marriage to have sex, and that is a moral principle of yours. And if all of your mates were having sex out of marriage then you would naturally consider that immoral, whether or not you would speak out about it.
Its pretty simple really, everyone who believes they have morals automatically judge the morals of others by having morals themselves.
This is what you posted;
"...you don't think that everyone sees others as being less moral?"
I did not say that I don't judge the morality of others. I said I don't believe that everyone sees everyone else as less moral. In fact, I woud think that sometimes people judge others morals and find THEMSELVES to be wanting.
Judgement of anothers morals is an entirely different subject for debate than what you asked.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 02:05 PM
They take precedence for me, which is all i have control over, and thus all i really concern myself with.I have heard you call meat eaters murderers and accomplices to murder.
It sounded as if you were passing judgement on them because of your personal dietary choices.
I myself try not to interfere with the choices or actions of any individual or group unless their actions are adversely affecting others.
... Then how do you follow a moral code?
What makes you think I have a moral code? Is it your contention that all humans have a moral code? Can a human even exist without a moral code?
Speaking of the golden rule, do you believe that the golden rule is based on humanistic or religious philosphy? There are some who would argue that the golden rule is derived from neuroscientific/neuroethical findings.
What makes you think I have a moral code? Is it your contention that all humans have a moral code? Can a human even exist without a moral code?
Speaking of the golden rule, do you believe that the golden rule is based on humanistic or religious philosphy? There are some who would argue that the golden rule is derived from neuroscientific/neuroethical findings.
You have no moral code? I find that very hard to believe. You do not think yourself morally superior to murderers or pedophiles ect ect? I know i am using extreme examples, but i find it even more extreme to claim you have no moral code.
I believe it is a tool to ensure human survival, and one which was taken and put into terms that people could better understand (religion) and thus religions are bi-products of evolution.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 02:17 PM
What makes you think I have a moral code? Is it your contention that all humans have a moral code? Can a human even exist without a moral code?
Absolutely!...Murderers, rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, corrupt politicians, etc etc.
Hopefully they are and will remain a small percentage of the population.
Absolutely!...Murderers, rapists, homosexuals, child molesters, corrupt politicians, etc etc.
Hopefully they are and will remain a small percentage of the population.
Deep question is deep,
For example someone may be a murderer, but find a child molester disgusting.
While both are morally horrid, you would surly judge the child molester to be more vile than the murderer. Inwhich case can the murderer not have view what he did as moral but what a molester does as immoral, and thus have a moral code?
You have no moral code? I find that very hard to believe. You do not think yourself morally superior to murderers or pedophiles ect ect? I know i am using extreme examples, but i find it even more extreme to claim you have no moral code.
I believe it is a tool to ensure human survival, and one which was taken and put into terms that people could better understand (religion) and thus religions are bi-products of evolution.
I did not claim I have no moral code. Of course I do. Yes, based on my personal beliefs I think I am morally superior to murderers and pedophiles (and a few others too!). However, I don't think that because I am a meat eater and others are vegetarians that I am morally superior to them. Again, I am more of the philosophy of Shaw etc. when it comes to the golden rule. In other words, application of the golden rule is situational/circumstantial.
Regarding your second statement:
I think that the golden rule (and variations thereof) was formulated from that human emotion called compassion as well as the realization that an individual could find themselves in a position where the golden rule would be advantageous even though it may not be of any particular significance at the moment to that individual. For example, a tribe member who is strong and healthy would generally be able to fend for themselves while a weaker member may not be able to do so. The stronger member provides for the weaker in the hope that when the stonger member grows weak, others will provide for him. Individual self interest rather than survival of the human race (I believe) is what propagated the golden rule.
Deep question is deep,
For example someone may be a murderer, but find a child molester disgusting.
While both are morally horrid, you would surly judge the child molester to be more vile than the murderer. Inwhich case can the murderer not have view what he did as moral but what a molester does as immoral, and thus have a moral code?
Not quite that simple methinks. The assessment of the morality of others (as you have hinted at previously) is based upon ones own moral code. One man's murderer is another mans hero! The priority of morality is likewise based; i.e. vegetarianism is not a significant violation of some people's moral code and thus of no siginificance in assessing moral superiority while murder and pedophilia are quite significant violations.
HogTrash
12-18-2009, 03:06 PM
Deep question is deep,
For example someone may be a murderer, but find a child molester disgusting.
While both are morally horrid, you would surly judge the child molester to be more vile than the murderer. Inwhich case can the murderer not have view what he did as moral but what a molester does as immoral, and thus have a moral code?I fail to see the depth unless you are suggesting we allow individuals to judge their own actions and still remain in a moral society, but then you must somehow convince society they are not immoral.
Hey!...Wait a minute!...Liberal ideology and political correctness have already convinced us to accept immorality and perversion to some degree and are pushing for even more tolerance of immorality.
Kathianne
12-18-2009, 03:44 PM
I presume many members of this board are now converted to vegetarianism!
Indeed, except for taste and teeth. ;)
Indeed, except for taste and teeth. ;)
LOL...that and just plain stuborness!
Give Noir credit...he debates with reason and logic and even somewhat bravely! I like the kid even if I do not agree with his philosophy.
Kathianne
12-18-2009, 03:59 PM
LOL...that and just plain stuborness!
Give Noir credit...he debates with reason and logic and even somewhat bravely! I like the kid even if I do not agree with his philosophy.
Hey, I'm as short of vegetarianism as I can be, not by choice, but by diet for blood pressure.
Ignoring that, I love veggies and fruit, but am satiated with proteins and carbs. I've a feeling that's natural for man.
I have heard you call meat eaters murderers and accomplices to murder.
It sounded as if you were passing judgement on them because of your personal dietary choices.
I myself try not to interfere with the choices or actions of any individual or group unless their actions are adversely affecting others.
Likewise, i agree, the difference being that you believe 'others' to be other humans, and i believe 'others' to be other animals.
Not quite that simple methinks. The assessment of the morality of others (as you have hinted at previously) is based upon ones own moral code. One man's murderer is another mans hero! The priority of morality is likewise based; i.e. vegetarianism is not a significant violation of some people's moral code and thus of no siginificance in assessing moral superiority while murder and pedophilia are quite significant violations.
Indeed but its all relative, i regard murder as a significant violation, not just in a legal sense of one person killing another deliberately, but in the sense of deliberately and pointlessly killing any animal.
I fail to see the depth unless you are suggesting we allow individuals to judge their own actions and still remain in a moral society, but then you must somehow convince society they are not immoral.
Hey!...Wait a minute!...Liberal ideology and political correctness have already convinced us to accept immorality and perversion to some degree and are pushing for even more tolerance of immorality.
Good lord man, you know when posting that reply it did occur to me that someone may quote me and say i'm somehow supporting murder or normalising molestation ect ect, but i didn't think anyone would be so crass as to do it, yet again you amaze me, by either misunderstanding (deliberately or not i am unsure) what i was saying.
Ofcourse i'm not saying that everyone should judge their own actions, i was simply saying that in reference to your suggestion that some people have no moral code i.e. murderers, what would you then say to a murderer who views child molestation as wrong, surly this person without a moral code is now displaying one.
KitchenKitten99
01-06-2010, 12:28 AM
Once again... Kitteh has to settle the whole argument:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p298/FuzzyKitten1999/opinion.jpg
:salute:
Indeed but its all relative, i regard murder as a significant violation, not just in a legal sense of one person killing another deliberately, but in the sense of deliberately and pointlessly killing any animal.
"pointlessly killing any animal" is wrong (from my personal perspective) but not necessarily murder. Killing them for food is NOT murder either. The fact that you view killing animals for food as murder and others do not would appear to be the crux of the issue.
It seems to me that as soon as you make your side of the argument, you attack your opposition's morality and that, my friend, is not only arrogance on your part but also very, very subjective. Nothing good ever comes from trying to impose YOUR version of morality on another. If you become radical enough in your position, you will be strapping on a bomb vest and heading to the local butcher shop to make your point!
"pointlessly killing any animal" is wrong (from my personal perspective) but not necessarily murder. Killing them for food is NOT murder either. The fact that you view killing animals for food as murder and others do not would appear to be the crux of the issue.
It seems to me that as soon as you make your side of the argument, you attack your opposition's morality and that, my friend, is not only arrogance on your part but also very, very subjective. Nothing good ever comes from trying to impose YOUR version of morality on another. If you become radical enough in your position, you will be strapping on a bomb vest and heading to the local butcher shop to make your point!
Lol, I think that murdering people, to try and stop them murdering animals would be te most ironic death imaginable xD I assure you I shan't be. And in the same way I do not support groups like PETA, while I may agree with them on certain issues, they are too forceful and their methods are not what I would consider acceptable.
As for the moral angle. I am not trying to impose my morals as such, I am just asking people to consider their own. For example you say;
"pointlessly killing any animal" is wrong (from my personal perspective)
We do not need to eat meat, you could live a perfectly healthy life and never eat any meat again...would you then not say that every animal that you eat has been killed pointlessly? And thus by your own reasoning, wrong?
....We do not need to eat meat, you could live a perfectly healthy life and never eat any meat again...would you then not say that every animal that you eat has been killed pointlessly? And thus by your own reasoning, wrong?
No, I would not. I do not believe that eating meat is morally wrong any more than I beleive eating only vegetables is morally wrong (it's silly but not morally wrong...heh). The chances of me becoming a vegetarian are extremely limited (possibly could happen due to medical circumstances) and even then I would not regret a single hunk of meat that I have eaten.
As for my own reasoning, here is a hint: I very much believe that one's morality is circumstantial. You have the luxury of being a vegetarian because vegetables are readily available. If they were not, then I submit you would eat whatever was available to survive. You go without sustenance long enough and burnt rat on a stick looks pretty darned appetizing!
Sitarro
01-06-2010, 08:04 AM
If we aren't hunters, why do we have our eyes in front of our face? Prey, like deer or cows or chickens have their eyes on the sides of their head.
Linda McCartney was a vegetarian......... died at the very young age of 47 of cancer....... I wonder why that is.
If we aren't hunters, why do we have our eyes in front of our face? Prey, like deer or cows or chickens have their eyes on the sides of their head.
Linda McCartney was a vegetarian......... died at the very young age of 47 of cancer....... I wonder why that is.
Ummm ... because the gods punished her for eating carrots?
No, I would not. I do not believe that eating meat is morally wrong any more than I beleive eating only vegetables is morally wrong (it's silly but not morally wrong...heh). The chances of me becoming a vegetarian are extremely limited (possibly could happen due to medical circumstances) and even then I would not regret a single hunk of meat that I have eaten.
You do not think that eating meat is wrong. But you think that killing animals pointlessly is wrong. And as we don't need to eat animals killing them for food is pointless.
I'm confused =/
As for my own reasoning, here is a hint: I very much believe that one's morality is circumstantial. You have the luxury of being a vegetarian because vegetables are readily available. If they were not, then I submit you would eat whatever was available to survive. You go without sustenance long enough and burnt rat on a stick looks pretty darned appetizing!
Indeedy, as I gave said many times, a death for no reason is murder, howeer, if I was in a situ where I had to eat meat or risk my own health, then inwould eat meat, as there is then a reason for the death. That is also why I do nt think that 'lions murder deer' ect as is so commonly put to me, the do it to survive. We do not have to kill these animals to survive, we can live just fine without eating them.
If we aren't hunters, why do we have our eyes in front of our face? Prey, like deer or cows or chickens have their eyes on the sides of their head.
Linda McCartney was a vegetarian......... died at the very young age of 47 of cancer....... I wonder why that is.
We were hungers, and evolved as such, no doubt, but you need only look at other animals, like monkeys, apes ect to see that just cus you have eyes in the front of your head doesn't mean you eat meat, and ofcourse on the whole we are biologicly not set up
to eat meat.
But j again will say, no matter what we where, or one dag may be, we do not have to eat meat now, and thus do not have to slaughter these animals.
Ans yes ofcourse, it is a well known fact that not eating meat causes cancer /sark
how dare you use someones death in such a disrepectful way.
You do not think that eating meat is wrong. But you think that killing animals pointlessly is wrong. And as we don't need to eat animals killing them for food is pointless.
I'm confused =/
Indeedy, as I gave said many times, a death for no reason is murder, howeer, if I was in a situ where I had to eat meat or risk my own health, then inwould eat meat, as there is then a reason for the death. That is also why I do nt think that 'lions murder deer' ect as is so commonly put to me, the do it to survive. We do not have to kill these animals to survive, we can live just fine without eating them.
You beleive there is no point to eating meat. I do not. Why are you confused?
One more thing, you have stated that you are not attempting to impose your morals on anyone else. If that were true, then this discussion would not even occur. Your implication to meat eaters is that YOU are morally superior and have given reason as to why you beleive that. I, as a meat eater, reject that argument. I do not find your arguments for not eating meat as compelling as you do.
In essence, this is another case of "we will have to agree to disagree". I will say however that I dislike your implication that I am a murderer, morally inferior, etc. because I eat meat. Not only do I eat meat, I ENJOY eating meat!
You beleive there is no point to eating meat. I do not. Why are you confused?
Simply because there is no reason to eat meat,
One more thing, you have stated that you are not attempting to impose your morals on anyone else. If that were true, then this discussion would not even occur. Your implication to meat eaters is that YOU are morally superior and have given reason as to why you beleive that. I, as a meat eater, reject that argument. I do not find your arguments for not eating meat as compelling as you do.
I think I have only ever started 2 topics on eating meat, but have talked about it much more than that. Simply because people ask questions or make statements. This thread started to put up a pic of my new cat, another was to put up a song, it is others that bring the discussion about, and granted it is not one I shy away from when it is raised.
As for morality. We all think we are more moral than others in different aspects of our life. Fact is you support a system that needlessly slaughters animals, I find that morally wrong, you may not, but that's your call.
In essence, this is another case of "we will have to agree to disagree". I will say however that I dislike your implication that I am a murderer, morally inferior, etc. because I eat meat. Not only do I eat meat, I ENJOY eating meat![/QUOTE]
glockmail
01-06-2010, 09:43 AM
Got an interesting e-mail, thus i thought i'd share,
We're omnivore by behavior, not by biological build, function, or design.
* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
....
This is a lie, unless you are 2.5 feet tall.
The small intestine is a long and narrow tube about 6 to 7 meters (20 to 23 feet) long....
The large intestine is wide in diameters but shorter than the small intestine. It is only about 1.5 meters (5 feet) long.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AnneMarieThomasino.shtml
Simply because there is no reason to eat meat,
I think I have only ever started 2 topics on eating meat, but have talked about it much more than that. Simply because people ask questions or make statements. This thread started to put up a pic of my new cat, another was to put up a song, it is others that bring the discussion about, and granted it is not one I shy away from when it is raised.
As for morality. We all think we are more moral than others in different aspects of our life. Fact is you support a system that needlessly slaughters animals, I find that morally wrong, you may not, but that's your call.
In essence, this is another case of "we will have to agree to disagree". I will say however that I dislike your implication that I am a murderer, morally inferior, etc. because I eat meat. Not only do I eat meat, I ENJOY eating meat![/QUOTE]
LOL...again, I don't find the slaughter of animals for food as "needless".
I guess I have to ask: where do you draw the line? You don't NEED to eat ALL types of vegetables, so I presume (based on your reasoning) that you only eat certain ones. Obviously, fruits are out as well since you don't NEED to eat them ... and nuts of all kinds as well.
Anyway, on a final note, I did not realize that this thread (or the other one for that matter) had been derailed and my apologies to all (especially Noir, who only wanted to show off the new feline) for further taking it of topic. Regarding cats...I like them fine, especially deep fried!
Luna Tick
01-09-2010, 11:22 AM
What that means is that the human body is better at digesting plant food than meat, but is still capable of digesting meat. That makes us omnivores. We do better with diets that are chiefly plant-based and if meat is included, it's in small amounts. That basically describes the diets of people in Asian countries who tend to live the longest and be the healthiest.
glockmail
01-10-2010, 07:03 PM
Still waiting for Noir to acknowledge the lie.... :lame2:
Still waiting for Noir to acknowledge the lie.... :lame2:
Hey, sorry i didn't see the post, indeed it seems the statement "* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores." is a lie.
glockmail
01-11-2010, 08:22 AM
Hey, sorry i didn't see the post, indeed it seems the statement "* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores." is a lie.
Which means that your whole theory of humans not designed to eat meat is a lie.
Which means that your whole theory of humans not designed to eat meat is a lie.
Hardly the whole theorie, unless you have something saying that we really do have sharp teeth and claws, and that our saliva is acidic not alkiline, and that out intestines are smooth and not folded (which btw is where I think this problem of length of the intestine comes from, for it's inter surface is not smooth, but full of folds, giving it a far greater surface area than it may apear through length alone, but as I am not certain of that I will not argue it) add to that the health benifits we get from not eatin meat like a no colestoral diet ect, and can you truly say we're made to eat meat? Personaly I think not. Sure we can eat it, doesn't mean we should. And ofcourse this is purly on a practical level, and does nit delve into the morality aspect.
glockmail
01-11-2010, 09:20 AM
Well again, God gave us large fore brains to make and use sharp tools like knives to cut our meat, as well as build fires to cook it first. Large claws and sharp teeth would therefore be unnecessary, as well as a fashion faux paux.
I don't sit well with this whole 'God gave us the ability to, ergo it is right that we should' for two reasons. The first being I do not believe in any sort of god. The second being that could you not then use this to justify all sorts of wrongs? Because afterall god gave us the ability to lie, and the ability to murder ect ect.
Surly by your own admitence god has given us the ability to do many wrong things. It is however for us to chose if we are to do those wrong things or not. Though again it's pretty odd me asking such questions as I don't believe in a God in the first place.
You also seem to be ignoring the health issues, as I memo saying in a previous post why would God give us a complex brain so we could eat meat without claws ect, only for it to give us high blood pressure and colestoral ect, when it doesn't in other animals.
glockmail
01-11-2010, 12:49 PM
I never said "God gave us the ability to, ergo it is right" or anything to that effect.
Above all else God wants us to have free will. That's why he designed us to eat meat, plants, or any combination of the two. That's why He lets criminal behavior exist, why He permits gluttons and why he allows you to believe something as silly as that His creations happened out of pure chance. With that freedom, however, comes responsibility, and the absolute requirement to face the consequences of our decisions.
I never said "God gave us the ability to, ergo it is right" or anything to that effect.
Above all else God wants us to have free will. That's why he designed us to eat meat, plants, or any combination of the two. That's why He lets criminal behavior exist, why He permits gluttons and why he allows you to believe something as silly as that His creations happened out of pure chance. With that freedom, however, comes responsibility, and the absolute requirement to face the consequences of our decisions.
No, but you justify the fact that you eat meat by the fact that you can, because good gave you a big brain =/
Indeedy, responsibility, i don't happen to find it responsible, moral or necessary for us to murder these animals. and added to the moral reasons, there are the practical/health reasons.
Trigg
01-11-2010, 03:06 PM
this might have been pointed out already but here goes, didn't feel like slogging through 4 pages.
Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature
Here also is an article on monkeys and the fact that they do indeed eat meat.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
4 pages to find out that humans are indeed biologically omnivores, Noir doesn't like that fact, but it's still a fact.
this might have been pointed out already but here goes, didn't feel like slogging through 6 pages.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature
Here also is an article on monkeys and the fact that they do indeed eat meat.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
Indeedy, that goes to show we can't break down Grass, i'm not saying we should eat grass,
As for the monkey eating meat, i know they do, even though i'm sure it will be as bad for them as it is for us, though it may benifit them at this current stage of the evolution more than it hampers them, as it once did for man.
glockmail
01-12-2010, 03:05 PM
No, but you justify the fact that you eat meat by the fact that you can, because good gave you a big brain =/
Indeedy, responsibility, i don't happen to find it responsible, moral or necessary for us to murder these animals. and added to the moral reasons, there are the practical/health reasons.
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.m-w.com
Redefining the English language to try and make a point is always a failure.
Furthermore, brain development is enhanced with a high protein (meat) diet:
Dietary quality is correlated with brain size. Foley and Lee first consider brain size vs. primate feeding strategies, and note that folivorous diets (leaves) are correlated with smaller brains, while fruit and animal foods (insects, meat) are correlated with larger brains. The energetic costs, both daily and cumulative, of brains in humans and chimps, over the first 1-5 years of life are then compared. They note [Foley and Lee 1991, p. 226]:
Overall the energetic costs of brain maintenance for modern humans are about three times those of a chimpanzee. Growth costs will also be commensurately larger.
Then they consider encephalization and delayed maturation in humans (compared to apes), and conclude, based on an analysis of brain growth, that the high energy costs of brain development are responsible for the delay in maturation.http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4a.shtml
I have said on countless occasions, i know it is not murder by the letter of the law, however, in my opinion a death for no reason is murder, and thus i call it as such.
and you can have a high protein diet without having to eat one slab of animal flesh.
glockmail
01-12-2010, 03:59 PM
I have said on countless occasions, i know it is not murder by the letter of the law, however, in my opinion a death for no reason is murder, and thus i call it as such.
and you can have a high protein diet without having to eat one slab of animal flesh.
On countless occasions, redefining the English language to try and make a point is always a failure.
It's not just protein that stimulates brain development, but animal protein, along with certain types of animal fats.
But recent research shows that fish is much more than just an alternative source of animal protein. Fish oils in fatty fish are the richest source of a type of fat that is vital to normal brain development in unborn babies and infants. Without adequate amounts of these fatty acids, normal brain development does not take place.http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/fisheries/nutr.htm
On countless occasions, redefining the English language to try and make a point is always a failure.
It's not just protein that stimulates brain development, but animal protein, along with certain types of animal fats.
http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/fisheries/nutr.htm
Ofocouse, i guess that explains why i'm such a retard, /sark.
glockmail
01-12-2010, 07:20 PM
That would explain much.
LiberalNation
04-11-2010, 06:28 PM
if we were meant to be veggies we;d have three stomachs like cows, if we were carnivores we'd have stronger stomach to digest longer than a few days old and raw meat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.