Have you ever gotten into it with a vegetarian who is utterly disgusted that animals are killed just to feed you?

Here's a response that should leave them mute:


[u]Animal Rights/Vegetarian[/u] - "How can you eat hamburger, don't you know an animal was KILLED just for that? Why not eat a soyburger like me?"

[u]Me[/u] - "Do you know how many ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits and field mice had their burrows crushed and were buried alive or dismembered by the farmer's tractor when he plowed the land to plant your precious soybeans?
Don't you know you're eating soy/lettuce/vegetables that was grown on the graves of hundreds of baby animals crushed to death in their burrows or run over by the plow?"





That usually shuts them up - for a while at least.

Humans are Omnivores!

Enough said!

I will definitely use that one next time.  

--I eat beef to save baby ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits and field mice .

i usually just fart and they go away just as well.  and i dont have to say anything...

and its the damned veggies that give me gas.

LOL [:D]

Have not tried it, but here it goes, when cows are at the top of the food chain, then I will worry about how they were treated.

"Do you know an animal was KILLED just for that !?"

"Yeah, trouble is, they would'nt let me kill it.. Want a sip of this cup of blood? Fresh kill!"


Or, you could try the whatever-burger, and comment "Hey, this tastes just like baby seal!"

Meplat-

My response typically is something along the lines of:  "I love animals----they taste delicious!"

A couple of weeks ago on my way to work, I drove past an ill-shaven hippie in a Geo, with the back end plastered with 'meat is murder' type stickers.  I was honking and waving my sandwich at him, but he didn't look over.  Maybe next time!  [devil]

If we're not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat?

[b]PETA....People Eating Tasty Animals.[/b]

Aviator  [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]

I like your approach...I'll have to use that.  I must admit I've never thought about it in that light either.  We shouldn't run over the cute furry critters.  More fun to shoot 'em anyway.

[i][b]Putting flame suit on![/b][/i][flame]

I myself am a vegetarian,although my reasons arent all becuase of animal issues it is mostly for my health.I am an athletic guy and red meat and fatty chicken just isnt what I want my body to feed off of. I dont mind of other people around me eat meat while Im there,I have been to where they slaughter cows,pigs and chickens and it really turns me off honestly. While I am a gun nut(assualt weapons only) I have never went hunting and I really dont plan on doing so,I think I would have a much easier time killing a human in a self defensive way ofcourse than hunting an animal. just my .02!

Disclaimer: This is not a flame.

If you look at the basic design of the human body (especially the digestive system), it was never intended for us to be herbivorous. Starting with our teeth all the way to our colon, there's nothing to indicate that we were meant to survive on plants. We don't have the multi-chambered stomach of the ruminants or the cecum found in horses & rabbits which are essential for extracting the nutrients we require. Also, the presence of cuspids (canine) teeth strongly suggests that we are designed to eat meat.

That is [b]not[/b] to say that we're designed to be carnivorous. Americans as a whole probably eat more meat that we need to (most likely because it tastes so damn good). But our digestive tracts are too long to be entirely carnivorous (when compared to a feline or canine digestive system).

By design, human beings are meant to be omnivorous (as LotBoy) pointed out. Pure herbivorism in humans can lead to a host of medical problems including, but not limited to, pernicious anemia (lack of B-12 -- which is found in animal products ONLY) and bone density loss (due to calcium deficit). Can you get around these? Yes. But the body and it's environment (which includes the food we take), was designed so that we wouldn't need to compensate for unnatural dietary restrictions.

Strictly speaking from a biological perspective, do we consume too much animal products? Probably. But to remove it entirely, for biological reasons, doesn't make sense. If someone has moral reservations about eating meat, that's one thing and I respect that even though I don't agree with it and as long as he/she respects my biological imperative to consume animal flesh. But that biological imperative evidences that the "health" reason for [b]eliminating[/b] meat from the diet doesn't hold water.

As far as the slaughter concept goes, well, quite frankly I agree with you. I'd much rather eat something like venison or rabbit that was taken fresh and one at a time. But it gets impractical to have game be your only source of meat. So ranchers, slaughterhouses, meat packers, and butchers do the job for us.

Edited because I'm a spaz

This is not true at all.

First, about our stomach.  Most herbivores do not have a multi-chambered stomach.  So you can't use this as evidence that humans were not meant to eat a plant-based diet.  The relevant fact is that herbivorous animals have a longer intenstines and colon, to better digest the plant-based nutrients.  Carnivorous animals have very short digestive tracts.  If you look at the human anatomy, we have very long intestines and colon.  If you look at an animal like a lion for example, their intenstines are very short.

Second, about our teeth.  If you look at most other herbivores, they also have sharp incisors.  Yet, they eat no meat.  So the simple presence of 4 incisors in the human mouth is not evidence that we were not meant to have a plant-based diet.  If you look at human teeth, you will see that they are clearly designed for crunching and mashing, not tearing and rending.



That's not true either.  First, the body stores vitamin B-12 very well.  It stores this vitamin easily for about 5 years, so just a little bit goes a long way.  The source for B-12 in our diet used to come from the dirt from unwashed roots and other plants.  In today's world, everything is cleanly washed off, and this is no longer a reliable source.  Instead, multivitams are recommended.

As for the bone density part, that's not true at all.   The best source for calcium is vegetables.  Broccoli for example has more calcium than milk.  Also, the high saturated fat and protein content from a meat and dairy based diet leeches calcium from your bones.

If she's hot ask her out on a date.
If she says no.  Tell her your sorry because you knew of a great steak house.

My discussion [b]wasn't[/b] specifically about the stomach. Yes, ruminants are a small subset of herbivores. But as you point out, herbivores have complex digestive systems. The "relevant fact" is they're more complex than humans'. We're not equipped to extract nutrients from beyond cell walls (extant in plant cells only) in the same way as herbivores.

The rabbit, an example of a non-ruminant herbivore, consumes its own nocturnal feces for the nutrients generated by the action of intestinal floral on food's first pass. Humans, as a general rule, don't do that and, when they do, I'll wager it is [b]not[/b] for nutrition. Horses, another herbivore sans rumen, have exaggerated cecums while ours is the largely useless appendix.



I'm sure I said this. We [b]do[/b] have a longer digestive tract than a carnivore. That's part of the reason I said that we're not meant to be carnivores. The digestive tract evidence suggests that we're not meant to be either carnivorous or herbivorous.



Interestingly, I never said anything about incisors. I would agree that the presence of prominent incisors along with molars and no other teeth is indicative of a plant based diet. But I said "cuspids," which [b]are[/b] designed for "tearing and rending." True herbivores do not have the same dental complements as carnivores. Humans have neither the same dental complements as carnivores or herbivores. Our dental array is more varied -- suggesting that we were meant to eat a range of food. Different tools for different jobs.

[i]continued[/i]

But my point is that our bodies were not designed to be exclusively herbivorous -- that vegetarianism is not a product of design. Vegetarianism is a choice (again, one with which I don't happen to agree but accept as someone's right as long as vegetarians and vegans accept my right to eat flesh).

Chimpanzee's DNA is over 97% the same as humans. Chimpanzees are omnivores. I don't see how anyone could make an argument against humans being omnivores as well.

Heh, heh. Just two weeks ago, I was getting a sandwich in Subway, and was wearing my t-shirt taht reads, "VEGETARIAN: Lewis & Clark's term for poor shot". Some chick behind me started giving me a ration of shit, saying "Look what meat has done to you" (I'm a little overweight-about 15lb). I looked at her and said, "I may be fat, but you're ugly and I can diet". Jeez, you shoulda seen the look on her face-she was, admittedly, quite attractive, and I don't think anyone EVER said anything like that to her. She clammed right up, turned a deep shade of red, got her veggie sandwich and left.[argue]

Sorry to hear that beeman, your dog was looking fairly tasty to me....[whacko]

I moreless agree with your reply, mine is a little less PC....

I say something like;
[argue]

'Listen, I am not one of your litle ACLU unarmed liberal buddies you talk to. I wont sing kumbaya or butt**** you. I like meat and if you dont leave me alone I may hunt your ass down'. The last guy got REAL offended and kinda scared, but I got my point across. I think....And if I didnt, he left me alone which was all I wanted.[soapbox]

For [b]ump45[/b] and any other vegan/vegetarian/vitameatavegamins or whatever out there - why do you go to such GREAT LENGTHS to rationalize your diet??????


I like prime rib and I don't like cauliflower. So what?

What is it about you people that you feel you have to write a thesis rationalizing your CHOICE to abstain from animal meats?  Sheeeesh!!

Eat what you want and leave me the hell alone!!

Okay, you want physiology...
My digestive system is equipped to produce [b]lipases and bile salts[/b] which are solely designed to digest [b]FATS[/b] of the animal kind.

You'd have to eat so many nuts and seeds in one sitting to even begin to use the bile normally stored in the gall bladder. Why have a gall bladder stored with all that bile when the liver makes enough bile to help digest the oils present in seeds?
Because animal fat is much more concentrated than nuts/seeds oil and so our bodies are adapted to digesting the fat in animal meat by producing and storing the bile in liver and gall bladder. And humans are "designed" to eat and digest flesh.

Also, we are NOT "designed" with cellulase enzymes or the bacteria to digest cellulose - as so many herbivores are. We are omnivores by design.

Last "proof":
Head down to the local "natural foods" vegan hangout and you'll see nothing but rapidly-aged, saggy-skinned malnourished walking carcasses holding tofu, bean sprouts and ten bottles of herbal/vitamins all spouting about how "alive" they feel.

No thanks, just let me head over to Black Angus for some medium rare red meat with lots of fat for flavor...

BUT EAT WHATEVER YOU WANT AND SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT!!!

ronin47, I disagree with your conclusions, but I definately appreciate your rational approach.

I've had this debate many times before, and it can get very long and drawn out, covering a wide range of topics.

The bottom line is that a plant-based diet perfectly satisfies all of the nutritional requirements of a human, as it has for thousands of years.  Our bodies are designed around a plant-based diet, with meat rarely being consumed.

I want to respond a little about the arguments pertaining to teet and the digestive tract:  Our teeth and our disgestive tract provide clear evidence that humans are designed around a plant-based diet.  Most of our teeth are broad and flat. The ones in the front are for snapping and biting, the ones in the back are for mashing and crushing.  There is no evidence, in the design of our teeth, that humans are designed for a mixed diet of eating meat and plants.  Of course, the human body is very versatile, and is able to support the eating of meat.  As for the human digestive tract, this provides clear evidence that humans are designed around a plant-based diet, with meat being a rare source of food.  Our digestive tract is very long, as is the digestive tract of all other herbivores.  Omnivores and carnivores have much shorter digestive tracts.

Over many hundreds of thousands of years, humans have survived on a plant based diet. Think about it. Animals run fast and they are tough and dangerous. Humans run slow and we are weak and vulnerable. So naturally we are designed to eat plants. Let me illustrate it even more plainly. Imagine you are living 50,000 years ago. You belong to a nomadic tribe of 30 people. You live like a wild man. There is no civilization. Every single day you have to fight for survival. Every single day you have to work to get food so you can live. You would be extremely lucky to be able to kill any wild animal. They run very fast, they are very alert, and they are all very dangerous. Does that sound practical to you? You don't even have a spear (nobody knows how to make them or has even thought of it before). Even if you did have a spear, good luck getting close enough to a deer to be able to throw it.  You can't feed your tribe hunting animals. Plants don't walk. Plants do not have sharp teeth and claws. They don't fight back. There are plants everywhere. So for the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have evolved, what do you think we were eating? What do you think our bodies are adapted to? PLANTS. Plants are healthy for us. If you eat alot of animals and animal based foods (as does the average American), then you will become unhealthy. You will get sicknesses and illnesses after years of eating a heavy animal based diet. By the way, the entire medical establishment/industry knows this already. But they profit from your sickness. The weight loss pills, the cholesterol reducing drugs, the diabetes medication, the list goes on and on and on and on...so many illnesses as a direct result of a heavily animal based diet.

The_Macallan, here's my response to what you wrote:



That's not true.  The human digestive system can digest saturated and unsaturated fats.  Most fat coming from plants is unsaturated, although some plant fats are saturated.



That's a weak argument.  First of all, the modern American gall bladder is much larger than that of our natural ancestors.  Humans are very adaptable and versatile creatures.  The gall bladder grows to meat the demand of your diet.  If you eat lots of meat and dairy, your gall bladder will grow.  Also, there are many plant sources of oils and fats other than seeds.  

That may be true but it sure doesn't taste as good.


[/B]

Not all animals are dangerous and hard to catch and kill without weapons.

Also, the nothing but meat diet being dangerous for health isn't entirly true.  A lot of meat/fat/protein isn't bad for you.  Its when you mix in a lot of carbohydrates with it is when it'll kill you.  In fact for kids its been found to cut the number of kids siezures.  Point is if you watch your carbo count and eat nothing but meat/protein stuff you can actually be a fairly healthy individual...

[url]http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/carbohydrates/protein.htm[/url]
[url]http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1002015.htm[/url]

ump45,

I would argue that the ancient human did not live off a strictly plant diet.  The argument has already been made that to maintain proper nutrition, it is not possible.  I would suggest that insects were included in the diet to a large degree, and still are in many cultures.  Also, I have seen video's on ancient south american cultures who have had very little contact with current modern culture.  They hunt and kill wild boar, and even have domesticated pigs that they raise.  Also, when ancient remains are found, they are usually found with animal bones and skin clothing.  That doesn't sound like plant eaters to me.

You can do what ever you want, as long as you don't infringe on my rights.  I find it interesting that you defend your position so much.  People who are comfortable in their beliefs don't usually try to justify them to others so agressively.

Yup, the mammoth's (I think mammoth, some elephant like creature) numbers fell quick because they weren't afraid of the humans, at first anyhow.  They were easy pickings and had a lot of meat from one animal.

Well, I could sit here and argue as to whether or not humans digestive tracts were designed for digesting meat...or I could go upstairs and eat another bratwurst...mmmm...meat.

Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. nuf said

my brother's wife is a veggy and they were at my mom's for lunch.  i decided to cook tripe. dang, bout made her nauseated. she went out for lunch with my wife and sister in-law. rotflmao [:D]

That's a pretty weak thing to say.  Don't you defend things you believe in (for example, your right to self-defense and self-preservation).  Does that mean you aren't comfortable in your beliefs about the RKBA?

Anyway, I don't think this whole topic needs to get personal.

You''re right that this debate can be long and drawn out. So I'm choosing to say again, for reasons I, along with a few others here, have already pointed out, as well as a host of other reasons, I can't support the conclusion that we were designed to be exclusively herbivorous. And, I'm guessing based upon how you've responded, that regardless of what is said here, you're going to stick to [b]your[/b] guns. So there's little point in continuing this line.

While I disagree with your conclusion that we're meant to be exclusively plant eaters, I [b]agree[/b] with some of your premises -- such as that we, as a culture, have our diets balanced in the wrong direction. But it's a logical fallacy to conclude that because a problem is created by too much of something, the solution is to have none of it. The expression about babies and bath water comes to mind.

Public health is a wider issue and could, logically be used as an argument for opening my diet up to public debate. But attack the cause of the problem. It's not the hamburger that causes the problem. It's that the hamburger is the only thing that some people eat. It's not the chili dog. It's that some people have forgotten the meaning of the word exercise.

Ultimately, we're going to disagree with each other. And that's fine. Pluralism is the cornerstone of our country. I have never tried to convince a vegetarian to eat meat. No more than I've tried to convince a Jew to be a Christian. Or a non gunowner to buy a gun. Or anyone to be anything other than what they feel the need to be. I think what people choose to eat is at least a personal choice as whom they choose to marry or where they worship. So I may voice an opinion, quote a few relevant facts, cite a reference or two but then, you're on your own. Free will and all that.

The problem, and I think the point of the original post, has more to do with how so many vegetarians and vegans are near militant in their choice and approach religious fervor in their need to criticize and then proselytize -- in essence, rejecting the notion of pluralism -- whereas those of us who are omnivorous typically don't even raise the issue until our choices are attacked. I raised the issues of anatomy only because it's a club that's often wielded by vegetarians as a "reason" for their choice. I think it's evident that the biological issue is, at best, a debate and not a reason.

To be more specific, why is it okay for a vegetarian to walk up to a complete stranger and verbally assault him for his order at a deli (as has happened to me and apparently others on this list)?

Damn!  After that big burger I had for lunch I was going to go easy tonight but all this talk of food has caused me to start the grill and pull out a T-bone.

I am a very easy going person (IMO), but I will admit that I have resorted to this technique - and yes, it works very well.

Tyler

Tell them you killed the animal for it's skin.  You just didn't want the meat to go to waste.  [:D]

Does this have anything to do with the Jungle, Landing Strip, Bald and whatever restaurants in Oklahoma?

EAT LIKE A RABBIT-

GET EATEN LIKE A RABBIT!!!![XX(]


                                          [frag]                                           [kill]                                           [shock]

Let's look at a predator (in general) - Lens-and-camera eyes, both forward to provide depth perception (for aiming strikes)
Generally relatively (sp?) long motor limbs, to provide speed and power.  Often able to function on limbe in pairs (forelimbs/arms, and rear limbs/legs.)
Manipulable - or at least prehensile - digits on two or four limbs.  Used for holding prey, and for striking.
Often, hard keratinous or calcified projections on forelimbs - or all limbs - we know them as "nails" or "claws."
Relatively large brain case (as a function of mass.)

Now, herbivores ("prey")

Generally on all fours - using all limbs for locomotion (and speed for evasion.)
Relatively small brain case
Vestigal or no functional digits.
Often, a single "nail" - or better, "hoof."  May be cleft.
Eyes situated to sides of head for greater visual coverage - little depth perception.
Little physical power - mainly geared for speed

Dentition -
Carnivore/Predator - usually incisors and cuspidor teeth, used for chopping and shredding.
Herbivore/Prey - Usually incisors and molars, used for chopping and pulverising.

Psychology -
Carnivore/Predator - somewhat higher intelligence, usually able to function in teams toward a common goal or "kill."  Vestiges of language in wild, and able to communicate relatively advanced concepts.
Herbivore/Prey - Intelligence and language geared to warning and evasion.  Often unable to form abstracts or to communicate advanced comcepts.  

I did a similar study for a Psychology class way back when.  Granted, H. Sapiens pretty much wrecks the curve in everything, but these are overall examples.

H. Sapiens is designed to be neither carnivorous nor herbivorous, but a combination ("onmivorous" - eats everything.)  Any shift toward carnivorism or herivorism is a matter of personal choice or psychology, in the main.  There are, of course, medical exceptions (my metabolism, for instance, requires a mainly carnivorous diet.  There are vegetarians in similar straits...)  However, probably 98% of the race of H. Sapiens is actually omnivorous.  

My attitude is generally this - leave me to my burger in peace, and I won't get after you for eating wood.  Sorry, but those "gardenburgers" taste like sawdust...  

As far as animal rights - how many of you have been accosted for wearing leather jackets?  The Question "Do you know an animal was killed so you can wear that jacket?"  My answer - "Yeah, but I didn't know there were any witnesses.  Now I have to kill you, too!"

Also, I just love the enviroMENTALists who accost me from across their steak or chicken when I talk to a dinner companion about a hunting trip.  How can I justify hunting?  Simple - just eliminating the middleman...

Oh, and nomadic carnivores/herbivores were following the migration of their food supply...

FFZ

Interesting that you didn't address any of my other points.  The reason vegetarians tend to rub people the wrong way has been addressed in this thread already.  The minority of them are very militant, even to the point of being terroristic in their tactics.  You can blame them for the attitudes that a lot of people have.

If you have to take supplements, it isn't a balanced diet.  Add some bugs and there you go....but they're meat aren't they?  Everytime a vegan eats a piece of bread, they are getting at least 5% bugs.  Do vegetarians feel bad for every bug they smash on their windshield?  I'm rambling....

I reply as such...

"Some people make the decision not to eat "meat", that is, flesh of land animals, but feel perfectly alright with eating seafood, that is, the flesh of ocean dwelling animals.  Or they will eat cheese and milk, or eggs, but not the cow or chicken.

"Now, you have made a judgement not to eat meat, why?  Do you not also believe that plants have rights?  How do you KNOW that plants do not feel pain when you rip them from the vine, or pull them up by the roots?  When you kill these plants, are you not harming the ecology?

"You make ecological judgements about cow flatulence, but you don't seem to mind the petrochemicals needed to fertilize the wheat that makes your bread, or plows the field (in the tractor's fuel tank), or transports your wheat to market, or the plastic to wrap it, power to refrigerate it, etc.

"Well, your decision about where on the food chain you eat might be as faulty as your judgement on the ecology.  You don't know enough to make these judgements.

"So, I prefer to eat high on the food chain.  You eat very low.  But don't try to make it into a judgement of my morals.

"If you prefer to eat vegetables, but not meat, fine.  But please, don't try to force this decision on me."

Yeah, technically a purely liquid diet also "satisfies all of the nutritional requirements" but that doesn't mean humans are liquivores.

Come on, your education is interfering with your common sense.

ALL archeological evidence shows that EVERY human culture throughout history and even before recorded history shows humans were MEAT-EATERS!!

The cavemen didn't paint pictures of themselves hunting broccoli - they painted themselves hunting ANIMALS!!

They ATE MEAT! Humans EAT MEAT because they are DESIGNED TO!!

I notice you ignore all evidence presented by myself and others here that refutes your asinine claims and just keep on parroting out the same old vegetarian BS lines

Get a grip and stop denying reality.

You are living proof that intelligence and education do not imply wisdom.

His argument is no more a logical leap than yours that because humans were 'too slow' to catch fast moving animals, they ate plants instead. In fact, your argument is MUCH weaker and requires HUGE leaps of faith to even accept that it MAY be possible.

I would have thought that because humans were too slow to catch these fast animals, instead of just eating plants, they would have exercised their far superior rational mind and FIND ways to catch and kill these animals more efficiently, rather than accepting their limitations. Humans are DEFINED by this sort of behaviour, as opposed to rank-and-file animals who just accept their role.

It's like the Morlocks and the Eloi. Which do you think YOU are? More importantly, which hold the balance of power and are more likely to adapt and survive?

Off-topic to all: avoid 'The Time Machine'. Simon Wells pisses on the grave of his great grandfather and it's concessions to political correctness mean the central message of the book is destroyed. The movie makes virtually NO sense.

What I hate is when a vegan starts in about how the reason early man ate meat and hunted is because primitive man didn't have readily available food supplies. Today it's unnecessary. If you eat meat or hunt now, it's because you trying to overcompensate for having a small penis.

Someone actually told me this. Needless to say, they weren't pleased with my replies....

[img]http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govpub/collections/wwii-posters/img/ww1646-73.jpg[/img]

How bout something along the lines of, "plants are basis for all life, without them all life would be extinguished, save a plant , eat a cow!" or " plants have feelings to[:D](actually some scientists believe plants can actually feel pain. You gotta eat to live and humans were designed by nature/God to eat both plant and animal.

Or how about, "I'd love to debate the issue with you, but seeing as how your probably not capable of a rational discussion and can only respond to my arguments from an emotional mindset due to the lack of calories and protein deficient in your diet, which is a necessity when it comes to higher intelligence and reasoning abilities, there's really no point in arguing with an idiot is there?
As an aside I'd probably mention a lack of protein in your diet makes one tend to be subseptable to to suggestion,and I suggest you go eat a cheeseburger.