VeggieBoards banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, stupid omni here. First off, I'm not against vegetarianism, so please be gentle <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D"> . So I joined this forum just to get your opinion on this subject. I have a speech for my communications class and I have to talk about how eating meat is good, which is really just an oversimplification of what I am going to talk about, but for all intents and purposes I'll leave it at that. One of my points is that humans can't digest cellulose. I've read several articles on the internet saying how humans are naturally herbivorous and how eating meat is actually bad for us. All plant tissue is composed of cellulose yet humans can't digest it. Herbivores contain the symbiotic bacteria that break it down which they can then obtain nutrients from, but humans don't. I've searched for cellulose on this forum and all that comes up are how omnis are stupid. Anyone have a solid rebuttal to how humans can't digest cellulose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
You might want to look for threads in this forum where we discuss if humans are herbivores or omnivores. I think a majority of us here feel we should be classified as omnivores. What we did in the past is mostly irrelevant to what the healthiest diet is. In evolution, the things that will create selection pressures are things that will impact successful reproduction of fertile offspring. What humans want now is not just to live long enough to reproduce, but to live well into their 80s or 90s with as few discomforts as possible. If you want info for your question, look at research on what dietary substances help promote that goal.<br><br><br><br>
Either way, I don't see how an animal that is herbivorous but does not digest cellulose is somehow not herbivorous. That just doesn't make sense. That's like saying that many carnivores aren't carnivorous because they can't completely digest hair and bone. And what does that have to do with the health of meat? Read up in medical journals and reputable books if you want information to prove that point. It seems like you are trying to prove meat is healthy by choosing the weakest pro-vegetarian arguments (straw men) and then disproving them.<br><br><br><br>
(A large number of us here are veg*n for ethical reasons anyway.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,260 Posts
Fiber's made of cellulose (those who have a background in biology, please correct me at will) and fiber is an extremely important part of our diet. If we were able to digest it, it would not do its job of helping absorb wastes when we remove it from our bodies.<br><br><br><br>
BTW, Thalia stated it pretty well. I would not consider us herbivores either, but that does not mean that anything we can eat is the healthiest diet for us. Check out "The China Study" too, where you will find arguments against the consumption of animal protein.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thalia</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
You might want to look for threads in this forum where we discuss if humans are herbivores or omnivores. I think a majority of us here feel we should be classified as omnivores. What we did in the past is mostly irrelevant to what the healthiest diet is. In evolution, the things that will create selection pressures are things that will impact successful reproduction of fertile offspring. What humans want now is not just to live long enough to reproduce, but to live well into their 80s or 90s with as few discomforts as possible. If you want info for your question, look at research on what dietary substances help promote that goal.<br><br><br><br>
Either way, I don't see how an animal that is herbivorous but does not digest cellulose is somehow not herbivorous. That just doesn't make sense. That's like saying that many carnivores aren't carnivorous because they can't completely digest hair and bone. And what does that have to do with the health of meat? Read up in medical journals and reputable books if you want information to prove that point. It seems like you are trying to prove meat is healthy by choosing the weakest pro-vegetarian arguments (straw men) and then disproving them.<br><br><br><br>
(A large number of us here are veg*n for ethical reasons anyway.)</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I too agree that humans are omnivores. I guess my main point that I will be defending then is that humans aren't herbivores. So I guess I'll look up those herb vs. omni threads.<br><br><br><br>
But as for the second paragraph, are you implying that humans are herbivorous? Because the first sentence sounds like it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't ALL herbivores digest cellulose? If those animals evolved to become herbivorous, wouldn't they have the necessary equipment to harvest nutrients from cellulose? Carnivores can't digest hair because there is no nutrients in it, they make their own keratin. As for the bones, they do digest them to a certain extent, just not completely.<br><br><br><br>
I am not arguing that meat is good FOR you, just that it is good. just an intro to argumentation class, so its supposed to be that simple. What occurs in nature is good. Humans are naturally omnivorous. So eating meat is good. And this is not a straw man. The fact that humans can't digest cellulose supports how human's aren't naturally herbivores, which is what vegetarianism implies.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top