VeggieBoards banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It's from a well known <a href="http://letthemeatmeat.com/tagged/Veg*an_Interviews" target="_blank">carnist apologist blog</a>, but it's a good read.<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I should confess here that the message of my blog is itself evolving. I started it because I kept running into vegans who, upon learning I was a paleontology student, would ask me for rhetorical ammo to use in their own arguments against eating animals. Its common for vegans to argue that humans are natural herbivores, for instance. But things just arent that simple. At first, I was game for the effort, but by the time I decided to start blogging, I had become more skeptical of it. At present, <b>Id say the message of my blog is that veganism is, first and foremost, an ethical stand, and should, first and foremost, be argued and defended as such.</b> Paleontology and evolution can bring a great deal of clarity to our understanding of issues related to veganism and animal rights, but they cant by themselves be used to build a case <i>for</i> (or <i>against</i>) veganism and animal rights.</div>
</div>
<br><br>
As with some of the nutrition articles I sometimes post, this follows a common thread of "skeptical veganism", the idea that we shouldn't rely too much on naturalist arguments to support veganism, especially when the actual science doesn't fully support those claims. I like this guy because he can admit early humans were almost certainly omnivorous, but how he claims that doesn't matter to the ethical choices modern humans make today. That's my argument too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Just before I went vegetarian and I heard the evidence that humans are natural herbivores I didn't want to accept that it made more sense than us being natural omnivores, but as a veg*n I do realise that it's not a very good argument on its own (if at all). I think the argument is obviously more just "have we <i>evolved</i> to eat meat yet?" as opposed to "were humans always omnivores?" An interesting point about the human body related to the herbivore/omnivore argument is our so-called "canines". There's the canine argument that kinda leads to a dead end debate on this one: why are our canines so small and useless?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
I think that relying on a "naturalist" argument for anything is pretty-much idiotic. Hello? Humans often can't even agree on what the freaking word "natural" even means.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top