VeggieBoards

VeggieBoards (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/)
-   Vegetarian Support Forum (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/11-vegetarian-support-forum/)
-   -   I'm looking for anti-vegetarian biological arguments... (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/11-vegetarian-support-forum/103644-im-looking-anti-vegetarian-biological-arguments.html)

Dunestrider 09-23-2009 10:06 AM

I'm compiling a list of anti-vegetarian biological arguments for my website (www.ethicalvegetarian.com).



The only example I have so far is the argument that the four canine teeth in humans means that we were designed to eat meat. I've defeated that by mentioning that the apes also possess four canine teeth, but are vegetarian. Except for chimpanzees, who have been observed to eat insects, but canine teeth are not required to tear apart tiny insects. Bears also possess canine teeth, but panda bears and koala bears exclusively eat bamboo and eucalyptus leaves, respectively.



I am sure that the people here have heard plenty of arguments along the line of "we were meant to eat meat because...".



So please post the arguments that you have heard. Even stupid arguments, which provide comic relief.



Thanks!


Willowriver 09-23-2009 10:38 AM

What a coincidence. A rabid ex-vegan who seems to spend most of her time convincing herself and complete strangers that slaughter is ok just posted this to an lj community.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20045146/T...sue-Hypothesis

Basically, it says that we evolved our brains because we had extra easily digestible calories from meat.



Of course, even if it's true, that's not really an argument against veganism, though she seems to think it is.

Semicharmed 09-23-2009 10:45 AM

Well, we are able to digest and get nutrients from animal sources. That is biological fact.



We ARE biologically designed to be ABLE to eat meat. The End.



I wouldn't waste time trying to argue that point, because it's BESIDE the point.



We are biologically able (or, "designed") to commit murder as well. Is that somehow an argument that it's ethically sound? Of course not!



Most veg*ns I've spoken to aren't saying we are not supposed to be able to eat meat at all, ever. I wouldn't go defending that point of view because I see it as defenseless. And, as I said, entirely irrelevant to the philosophy.



Just as with committing murder (or stealing, or having babies at 11 years old) it's not a question of are we designed to be able to do it. We ARE designed to be able to do it. It's just that some of us (obviously not all - there are omnivores, murderers, and pregnant children) don't see it as right DESPITE our ability to do it.

holnrew 09-23-2009 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowriver View Post

What a coincidence. A rabid ex-vegan who seems to spend most of her time convincing herself and complete strangers that slaughter is ok just posted this to an lj community.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20045146/T...sue-Hypothesis

Basically, it says that we evolved our brains because we had extra easily digestible calories from meat.



Of course, even if it's true, that's not really an argument against veganism, though she seems to think it is.



It obviously stopped working.

unovegan 09-23-2009 10:46 AM

I suppose that one argument could be that many people on this planet are eating meat and living long lives and it has been done for a very long time.

Fromper 09-23-2009 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Semicharmed View Post

Well, we are able to digest and get nutrients from animal sources. That is biological fact.



We ARE biologically designed to be ABLE to eat meat. The End.



I wouldn't waste time trying to argue that point, because it's BESIDE the point.



We are biologically able (or, "designed") to commit murder as well. Is that somehow an argument that it's ethically sound? Of course not!



Most veg*ns I've spoken to aren't saying we are not supposed to be able to eat meat at all, ever. I wouldn't go defending that point of view because I see it as defenseless. And, as I said, entirely irrelevant to the philosophy.



Just as with committing murder (or stealing, or having babies at 11 years old) it's not a question of are we designed to be able to do it. We ARE designed to be able to do it. It's just that some of us (obviously not all - there are omnivores, murderers, and pregnant children) don't see it as right DESPITE our ability to do it.



I think this is really the way to go in this type of argument. Don't bother with the point by point refutation of how we're "designed" to eat meat (designed by whom? The Bible says that God designed Adam and Eve to be vegans).



The point is that we can eat meat, but we don't have to. So why hurt the animals, the environment, and increase our own health risks by doing so?



--Fromper


SomebodyElse 09-23-2009 11:43 AM

I don't have a problem with people trying to figure out physical arguments in support of plant eating. 99% of the people who are against giving up meat are against it because they are convinced that humans require it biologically, and will be rendered unable to reproduce, transgendered, or dead in six months if they give up meat. They don't give a crap about pain, suffering, or ethics. How do people expect to go about presenting vegetarianism as a viable lifestyle to people like this?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider View Post

Bears also possess canine teeth, but panda bears and koala bears exclusively eat bamboo and eucalyptus leaves, respectively.

I believe pandas are more related to raccoons than bears, though they are all in the same general family. Koalas are not bears at all though. Just want you to get your facts in order.

Semicharmed 09-23-2009 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

I don't have a problem with people trying to figure out physical arguments in support of plant eating.



Me neither! That's great!



It's the attempt to refute our ability/designation/etc. as able to eat meat that is the indefensible position that is beside the point.



I'm all for educating people about how you can get everything you need from plant sources. But trying to do it by saying we are NOT able/designed to eat meat is the silly part, in my opinion.

amaroque 09-23-2009 12:32 PM

Meat-eaters: have claws

Herbivores: no claws

Humans: no claws





Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue

Herbivores: perspire through skin pores

Humans: perspire through skin pores





Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding

Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding





Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly

Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.





Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat

Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater





Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.

Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits

Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits





Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains



Taken from ...http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

Semicharmed 09-23-2009 12:40 PM

^Question... When you (or that website) say "meat-eater" is that implying carnivore or omnivore. Because I'll grant, easily, that humans are not designed to be carnivores. In fact, I've never met a single person who has suggested humans should be carnivores.



I can't deny that humans have made adaptations to be able to derive nutrients from meat and animal products. As much as I think it's "unnatural" to drink milk, I can't deny that certain human cultures have been able to get their bodies to produce lactase past the age of weaning. We CAN eat meat, and derive nutrients from it. That's not the point. The point is many of us don't see it as ethically sound.

amaroque 09-23-2009 12:44 PM

It's directly from the website so I can't presume to know what the authors intent was when he wrote "meat eater." I was just trying to help out the OP with his request. Personally speaking I agree with you that we are biologically capable of eating meat but not necessary.

jikin 09-23-2009 01:10 PM

Quote:
^Question... When you (or that website) say "meat-eater" is that implying carnivore or omnivore. Because I'll grant, easily, that humans are not designed to be carnivores. In fact, I've never met a single person who has suggested humans should be carnivores.



The link below has a similar chart at the bottom, but it divides it by carnivore/omnivore/herbivore so you can see all three compared to human. The top of the page goes into a bit more of an explaination. Going by what it has we are closest to herbivore.



Being that it is a pro-veg site, I'd take it with a grain of salt, though. I haven't done too much studying into the issue.



http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Semicharmed 09-23-2009 01:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jikin View Post

The link below has a similar chart at the bottom, but it divides it by carnivore/omnivore/herbivore so you can see all three compared to human. The top of the page goes into a bit more of an explaination. Going by what it has we are closest to herbivore.



Being that it is a pro-veg site, I'd take it with a grain of salt, though. I haven't done too much studying into the issue.



http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp



You're so right - agenda can be everything. I mean, humans have OMG, NO FUR COATS! So according to the "we should totally be STRICTLY herbivores, according to our biology" logic, we should probably get the hell out of Canada. But reason tells us otherwise. Because we've adapted our ways of life so that we CAN live there. Just like we've adapted our ways of life to be able to cook and eat meat. It's just that for me, one is ethically okay, and one is not.



And I suppose if someone is ethically against humans inhabiting Canada, I won't judge 'em for it... Just like I hope not to be judged by omnivores for my ethical choice!

Melvira Fox 09-23-2009 07:34 PM

Quote:

I believe pandas are more related to raccoons than bears, though they are all in the same general family. Koalas are not bears at all though. Just want you to get your facts in order.



I just wanted to point that that pandas are true bears. Red pandas belong in the raccoon family. I believe they may have a common ancestor (So you're right that they are related). Wiki sites some phylogenic studies. I just wanna stick up for the pandas.



Also, I believe chimps cannibalize. I saw it on 'Plant Earth'... It was creepy.



More on topic... I believe that anything that can be consumed could potentially be "food." That opens the door for all sorts of weird things. Though saying that humans are MEANT to eat meat bothers me. It's like Western cultures thinking that what Eastern cultures eat is weird... It's pretty subjective.



How about instead of trying to make a biological argument for eating meat or plants... show the capability of being healthy on a plant-based diet? Especially since lots of people think it's not healthy or cannot be done.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.