NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Vegetarianazis love to point out that humans are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. They almost always refer in such arguments, to the chart above or a derivative thereof.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone? Are humans actually just... "herbivores that are stupid and eat meat?"

Do cows eat meat? Do horses eat meat? The fact is, we eat meat because we're omnivores! Whaky vegans notwithstanding.

It tells us we evolved from herbivores, and indeed most of the great apes are herbivores. Not us or the chimps, though. It just so happens that humans and chimps show the greatest signs of intelligence among the great apes, and indeed certain meat and fish products seem to improve mental faculties.

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Vegetarianazis love to point out that humans are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. They almost always refer in such arguments, to the chart above or a derivative thereof.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone? Are humans actually just... "herbivores that are stupid and eat meat?"

We had to learn how to farm...we were nomadic hunters. ^-^

We aren't herbivores or omnivores, most of us are scavengers. We buy and eat meat that somebody else killed.

We aren't herbivores or omnivores, most of us are scavengers. We buy and eat meat that somebody else killed.

We aren't NATURAL scavengers. >.>

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Vegetarianazis love to point out that humans are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. They almost always refer in such arguments, to the chart above or a derivative thereof.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone? Are humans actually just... "herbivores that are stupid and eat meat?"

We can eat meat. So we either evolved or were made (whichever you prefer) to be able to eat meat. If we evolved it's because we had to do so. If we were made, we were meant to do so.

Ability does not mean the original purpose. In practice though, the vast majority of humans eat meat: the race as a whole is omnivorous.

As for original purpose, if we were made to be able to eat meat and were meant to eat meat, then why shouldn't we? If we evolved to be able to eat meat, then we are still evolving and why not evolve to eat meat as the norm?

As for the chart, I really don't care what our teeth are like. I can eat meat and I do.

For the record, I believe we were made, not that we evolved.

We can eat meat. So we either evolved or were made (whichever you prefer) to be able to eat meat. If we evolved it's because we had to do so. If we were made, we were meant to do so.

Ability does not mean the original purpose. In practice though, the vast majority of humans eat meat: the race as a whole is omnivorous.

As for original purpose, if we were made to be able to eat meat and were meant to eat meat, then why shouldn't we? If we evolved to be able to eat meat, then we are still evolving and why not evolve to eat meat as the norm?

As for the chart, I really don't care what our teeth are like. I can eat meat and I do.

For the record, I believe we were made, not that we evolved.

For the Christians in NS, it's stated in the Bible that lots of people not eating meat is a sign of the end times. :)

Scavangers tend to be omnivores. Does it make any sense to talk about a herbivorous scavanger. (Eating only those plants that it finds already killed by a true herbivore.)

We are adapted, physically, to be omnivores. We can not break down the cellulose of plant cell walls, but we do need plant derived compounds in our diet to survive. What does that tell you?

The statements used are too general.

Well just from dental analysis we are designed to chew and process both types of foods, animal and plant. Anthropological evidence shows our evolutionary ancestors as being scavengers, as in they ate what they could find, meat or vegetable. As we developed we developed along the same lines, hunting and gathering, until we developed agricultural skills that allowed us to settle in one place and develop more dependable food crops.

The fact is, that if mankind were dependant entirely on vegetables or plant foods, we would never have been able to adapt to the multitude of climates in which our species has survived, and indeed thrived. Aside from that, our bodies are unable to develop certain nutrients on their own, nutrients that are more easily obtained from meat than from a plant only diet. Since evolutionary changes like these occur after thousands of years it adds weight to the omnivourous argument.

On a persoanl note though, i do prefer a mainly vegetarian diet which I supplement with fish and poultry products (love sushi).

Multiple rolls of fat do not imply multiple digestive chambers.
Thumbs allow us cut meat without our teeth or nails.
Did it ever occur to anyone that these "herbivore", "carnivore", and "omnivore" groups can obviously transcend animal kingdoms?

We evolved from hunter-gatherers, and followed migrating herds. We gathered fruits and vegetables while we were doing it.

We are clearly omnivores.

For the Christians in NS, it's stated in the Bible that lots of people not eating meat is a sign of the end times. :)
Which is nothing short of hilarious, because eating meat on a Friday used to be a hellworthy tresspass. Supposedly. I guess God's Word changes from century to century, eh? ;)

For the Christians in NS, it's stated in the Bible that lots of people not eating meat is a sign of the end times. :)

I'm not familiar with that. What verse please?

The statements used are too general.

Not really. Too complex for ya? :confused:

Herbivores only eat plants.
Carnivores only eat meat.
Omnivores eat both plants and meats


Humans need both, so we are natural omnivores, not herbivores. Having no meat or fish in your diet is bad. Muscles and bone growth comes from many meats and other animal products like milk, fish, meat, cheeses. While skin, hair, and organ function comes from plants, like oranges, apples, rice, potatoes and wheats and other grains.

Humans are omnivores and its clear by what we need in our diets. That's why most vegatarians have poor diets and are neglecting their true potentional as humans. Also those who eat too many meats are ruining their body by excess in that fashion and can cause many problems later on.

We eat what we need, we eat what we want. If we need protein, we go "Hm, I should eat more protein. I like this type of meat, so I'll eat this to get said protein." or "I don't like meat at all, so I'll take these supplements instead." etc, etc.

Which is nothing short of hilarious, because eating meat on a Friday used to be a hellworthy tresspass. Supposedly. I guess God's Word changes from century to century, eh? ;)

Interesting: Christian bashing and your name is Melkor, Tolkien's character representing Satan. Interesting....:p

No, this is another instance of a church imposing rules on the people that really do nothing except to make those who don't really care feel like they're doing saomething good. The Roman Catholics are guilty of this, but they are by no means the only ones.

Our ancestors have been eating meat for the past 5 million years or so. Integrating meat into our diet was a pivotal point in brain development and we adapted to eat it. We're omnivores by nature, although we don't need that much meat, and some people don't eat enough vegetables.

I'm not familiar with that. What verse please?

Honestly I don't remember. It was cited on the NRA v PETA debate. I looked it up to verify it and it was there.

Honestly I don't remember. It was cited on the NRA v PETA debate. I looked it up to verify it and it was there.

I would also be interested to know where that is found. I have not heard of such a verse before.

Honestly I don't remember. It was cited on the NRA v PETA debate. I looked it up to verify it and it was there.
Maaan! An NRA v PETA debate! That must have been hilarious!

Cite the source!

PETA

People for Eating Tasty Animals?

our closest relatives (chimps and bonobos) eat some meat. Most anthropoids ate meat.

moreover, who cares? meat is tasty!

*bites next poster's leg*

Here we go again: We can only chose not to eat meat because way back in time we ate enough meat which made our brains bigger which then gave some us the crazy idea to go hermivore.
Humans, like chimps or pigs, are omnivores.

*Ouch! Don't do that again!*

*bites next poster's leg*
I feel no pain, yarr. (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/aa/300px-Piratey.jpg)

I feel no pain, yarr. (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/aa/300px-Piratey.jpg)
Hehehe - looks like that pirate already had a taste of wooden leg!

BTW, that site mentioned in the OP is against "animal experiments" - what does that have to do with eating meat?!?

Hehehe - looks like that pirate already had a taste of wooden leg!
Canadian (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-72891/CanadianClub/CCbilder/jpeg/Hocketpc2.jpg), perhaps?
To not encourage any sorts of stereotyping, this toothless pirate could actually be living next door to Fass (http://www.nbcolympics.com/icehockey/5134967/detail.html).

I feel no pain, yarr. (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/aa/300px-Piratey.jpg)
*eats parrot instead*

Canadian (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-72891/CanadianClub/CCbilder/jpeg/Hocketpc2.jpg), perhaps?
(...)
Arrr, eh?

We are omnivores. Like bears, chimpanzees and pigs. Look at our teeth. We have canines and incisors that are made for ripping and tearing like a carnivore's and molars for grinding like an herbivore's. The proteins we need for growth come most easily from meat - to get them in a vegan diet requires an incredible culinary stretch. While we don't need as much meat as most of us eat, we do best when we have some meat in our diets.

It can't be denied that humans are omnivorous, simply due to the fact that we can digest meat. However, we're not all that effective at digesting meat, especially red meats or raw meats. If you eat over 160g of red meat a week you are a third more likely to develop bowel cancer within a 10 year period. Red meat can lie in your intestine for weeks before it is properly digested as opposed to 48 hours for other foods. The human digestive system is highly versatile, but as a result fairly ineffcient, and as such has even more trouble digesting raw foods. Cooked foods being partly broken down by the cooking process.


The one thing I found odd about the website in the OP is that it completely neglected to mention the appendices.

_________________ | Human | Omni
Size of appendix_ | TINY_ | Large
No. of appendices | _ 1 _ | _ 1+

It can't be denied that humans are omnivorous, simply due to the fact that we can digest meat. However, we're not all that effective at digesting meat, especially red meats or raw meats. If you eat over 160g of red meat a week you are a third more likely to develop bowel cancer within a 10 year period. Red meat can lie in your intestine for weeks before it is properly digested as opposed to 48 hours for other foods. The human digestive system is highly versatile, but as a result fairly ineffcient, and as such has even more trouble digesting raw foods. Cooked foods being partly broken down by the cooking process.

We're a work in progress. The most effective or important parts of the system would develop first, then be fine-tuned later, I imagine.

We're a work in progress. The most effective or important parts of the system would develop first, then be fine-tuned later, I imagine.Though we have outgrown evolution somewhat. Most people, no matter how stupid or unhealthy or accident prone are able to survive to a ripe old age with a fair few grandchildren. Whereas yuppies tend to go into relationships where they become DINKs and forget to have children, and so not passing on any genetic traits that helped them get to where are (I presuming that is wasn't due to daddy's connections).

(...)
The one thing I found odd about the website in the OP is that it completely neglected to mention the appendices.
(...)
That whole website is strange 'cause its title is "animalexperimentationopposers.org" and they are indeed just a bunch of crazies who also try to make you feel bad not only about experimenting on animals but also try to convince you that eating meat is bad!

Though we have outgrown evolution somewhat. Most people, no matter how stupid or unhealthy or accident prone are able to survive to a ripe old age with a fair few grandchildren. Whereas yuppies tend to go into relationships where they become DINKs and forget to have children, and so not passing on any genetic traits that helped them get to where are (I presuming that is wasn't due to daddy's connections).

Eh, we haven't outgrown it...it's just changing directions...People are getting taller, for example. It's still survival of the fittest....just that different traits make you more fit. *shrug*

No. Humans are omnivores. They just say that humans are herbivores because they think that even if they are wrong they will convince people who dont know that.

The tigers eat meat, so why can't we???

Kreynoria']The tigers eat meat, so why can't we???
But... you can!!!

Eh, we haven't outgrown it...it's just changing directions...People are getting taller, for example. It's still survival of the fittest....just that different traits make you more fit. *shrug*How exactly does being taller help a human to survive in a western urban environment? Besides, not all humans are getting taller. If I remember right, Europeans are getting taller, but Americans are getting shorter. And that the change in height is better explained by a change in environmental factors such as diet. The diet of the average American has declined in recent decades, whereas Europeans are still getting a better and more varied diet than they were a century ago despite eating huge amounts of junk food.

There is certainly a share of evidence to indicate that humans are natural herbivores, but even if this is the case, it doesn't necessarily mean that eating meat is bad.

How exactly does being taller help a human to survive in a western urban environment? Besides, not all humans are getting taller. If I remember right, Europeans are getting taller, but Americans are getting shorter. And that the change in height is better explained by a change in environmental factors such as diet. The diet of the average American has declined in recent decades, whereas Europeans are still getting a better and more varied diet than they were a century ago despite eating huge amounts of junk food.

Eh, taller people earn more money...IIRC...

http://www.slate.com/?id=2063439
http://news.ufl.edu/2003/10/16/heightsalary/

Eh, taller people earn more money...IIRC...

http://www.slate.com/?id=2063439
http://news.ufl.edu/2003/10/16/heightsalary/That is weird... but even that could be proof of an evolutionary relic. That taller means better in the human mind, but doesn't necessarily mean better in this age. Being taller doesn't mean one is more creative or whatever. Earning more doesn't mean actually mean being better. Or we could rant about the inferiority of women and ethnic minorities.

And also, what about people who earn more money are more focused on their job and less likely to have children and so pass on their genetic traits.

That is weird... but even that could be proof of an evolutionary relic. That taller means better in the human mind, but doesn't necessarily mean better in this age. Being taller doesn't mean one is more creative or whatever. Earning more doesn't mean actually mean being better. Or we could rant about the inferiority of women and ethnic minorities.

And also, what about people who earn more money are more focused on their job and less likely to have children and so pass on their genetic traits.

Never said there was something about taller that makes 'em better, just that apparently there's an advantage to being tall, at the very least, earning more money. Point being, evolution hasn't stalled, just the definition of "fittest" has changed.

Never said there was something about taller that makes 'em better, just that apparently there's an advantage to being tall, at the very least, earning more money. Point being, evolution hasn't stalled, just the definition of "fittest" has changed.Well if the population is getting taller due to genetics, and there is no apparent advantage ti being taller other than exploiting an instinct in the human brain, the the species can hardly be said to be evolving. Changing yes, but not evolving. Evolving impies getting better. And like you said, taller doesn't mean better.

Well if the population is getting taller due to genetics, and there is no apparent advantage ti being taller other than exploiting an instinct in the human brain, the the species can hardly be said to be evolving. Changing yes, but not evolving. Evolving impies getting better. And like you said, taller doesn't mean better.

Not really...evolving implies changing...

e·volve Audio pronunciation of "evolve" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v. tr.
1.
1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: “the schemes he evolved to line his purse” (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v. intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology. To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

e·volve (past and past participle e·volved, present participle e·volv·ing, 3rd person present singular e·volves)


verb
Definitions:

1. transitive and intransitive verb develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development

Admittedly, this one says "often into something more complex or advanced" but it's not exclusively forwaard change.

evolve

• verb 1 develop gradually. 2 (of an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations by evolution. 3 Chemistry give off (gas or heat).

— ORIGIN Latin evolvere, from volvere ‘to roll’.

Little bit of etymology never hurts...

Not really...evolving implies changing...

Little bit of etymology never hurts...If evolve only meant change, then why would it have a counterpart 'devolve' which doesn't mean stationary or static. Evolution is a process of 'rolling' forwards, of progress, whereas devolvution is a process of rolling backwards, of regression. However, the meaning of evolutionary biology is/was part of heated debate between Gould and Dawkins. Gould believed that natural selection isn't always progressive and sometimes organisms can actually devolve. Whereas Dawkins believes that natural selection was always progressive. So, as I've come to understand it evolution implies progression. Whereas natural selection isn't always progressive.evolution

1. An unrolling.

2. A process of development in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by the differentiation of its parts, a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=evolve:p:)

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Vegetarianazis love to point out that humans are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. They almost always refer in such arguments, to the chart above or a derivative thereof.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone? Are humans actually just... "herbivores that are stupid and eat meat?"
Animal carnivors evolved to hunt meat with only their mouths and claws. Humans evolved to catch and hunt with our minds and hands. I think the table is crap. We wouldn't have k-9s if we weren't supposed to eat meat.

I tried a quote/unquote "healthy" vegitarian diet and I was sick for the entire month. I had no energy, couldn't sleep, unusual menstration, lethargy ect. I was supposedly getting the recomended dosages of everything but I felt REALLY unhealthy. Though when I started to slowly re-incorparate red meat I felt stronger, healthier, and happier. BUT this is just my personal experience. And all my vegitarian friends have no energy and are always getting sick.
Coninsidence?
I can't see how people can live without a big peice of juicy medium-rare tenderlion steak once in a while.

I'm not going to even read the argument. Humans evolved (there's that E word again:eek:) hunting and gathering and our teeth are good for both. We also enjoy the taste of meat implying that we evolved with it. Actually I'm going to read it now just to see what arguments they've got.

All right I read it and the Jaw and muscle points are beaten by the fact that most humanoids didn't use their teeth to kill animals like most predators but scavenged or used tools meaning we don't need very strong jaws to eat. Several other points such as finger nails and mouth sizes also play into the fact that we don't kill with our bodies but with tools. The rest I can't beat because I'm not a biologist but i'm sure if you got one (a non baised one)they could.

Vegetarianazis

What is a 'vegetarianazi'?

What is a 'vegetarianazi'?

Like a feminazi, but replace, "Women" with "Vegitarian" and "men" with "meat-eaters"

Like a feminazi, but replace, "Women" with "Vegitarian" and "men" with "meat-eaters"

Whoah there, what is a 'feminazi'?

What is a 'vegetarianazi'?

I assume that it refers to vegetarians that try to get others to become vegetarians also.

Whoah there, what is a 'feminazi'?

A woman that see men as the source of all evil in the world.

I assume that it refers to vegetarians that try to get others to become vegetarians also.

And the relation to the NSDAP is what, exactly?

What is a 'vegetarianazi'?

It's like a vegetarian, but one who literally sees meat-eating as murder and would gleefully stand by while meat eaters were shipped away in railroad cars to an undisclosed location.

And the relation to the NSDAP is what, exactly?

Nazi is commonly used to denote someone who is intolerant of others. In this case, intolerant of meat-eaters. In the case of a feminazi, intolerance of men. In the case of a grammar nazi, intolerence of other poor grammar. In the case of a spelling nazi, intolerence of poor spelling.

And the relation to the NSDAP is what, exactly?
That Hitler was a vegetarian.

If evolve only meant change, then why would it have a counterpart 'devolve' which doesn't mean stationary or static.

When has a biologist ever used the term 'devolve' as a counterpart to the word 'evolve'?

Whoah there, what is a 'feminazi'?

It was coined by Rush Limbaugh so you get the picture.

It's not PC to call them bitches anymore so enter femnazi or feminazi.....

It's like a vegetarian, but one who literally sees meat-eating as murder and would gleefully stand by while meat eaters were shipped away in railroad cars to an undisclosed location.

And do we have any evidence for the existence of such people?

If "naturally" being herbivorous meant anything at all anyway, then I don't think that vegans should be allowed to use anything that isn't "natural". Me, I intend to keep on devouring delicious animals and using state-of-the-art machinery to harness fire and make those animals delicious.

That Hitler was a vegetarian.

Apart from the squabs, ham and caviar obviously.

So... he wasn't a vegetarian.

And do we have any evidence for the existence of such people?

Are you saying that you need evidence that intolerant people exist? I got that chart link from one of them. He didn't say, "Yes, if the nazis were vegetarians and the Jews were just meat-eaters, I would gladly goose-step," and since the vegetarian nazi movement has yet to come to power and commit atrocities, it's hard to say. I am after all, just using a term to distinguish between people who are vegetarians, and the ones who are pathological about it. Good enough for you or do I have to use some bulky phrase like "vegetarians who are intolerant when it comes to other people's dietary choices?"

Apart from the squabs, obviously.

Hitler ate squabs?

I am after all, just using a term to distinguish between people who are vegetarians, and the ones who are pathological about it. Good enough for you or do I have to use some bulky phrase like "vegetarians who are intolerant when it comes to other people's dietary choices?"

Given that the claim is made by all kinds of colour of vegetarian, and is not limited solely to the fringes, why not just use the term 'vegetarian'?

Hitler ate squabs?

Apparently so.

Apart from the squabs, ham and caviar obviously.

So... he wasn't a vegetarian.
He was mostly vegetarian, although he ate some meat from time to time. Anyway, that's the connection. Same as carninazi, that's from Goebbels.

We’re omnivores. It’s just that simple. Bears graze too. There are social herbivores, but they are either political activists or people who watched too much Disney animals as a child.

Also scavenger isn’t a new class to be added to carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore in order to discredit one or another evolutionary track. Almost all carnivores and omnivores are scavengers to some degree (only a very few pass up a free meal after all). If a lion finds a dead animal it isn’t about to dismiss it because they didn’t kill it and it’s simply not sporting. Not scavenging would mean less chance of a species being successful, because they would have perished during hard times.

I think that a lot of us in the West probably eat too much meat (see Omnivore). Our ancestors craved it and it wasn’t always available, like salt. Because we can now do our hunting on the Serengeti Plains of the supermarket, we aren’t held in check quite the same way except by our pay cheque. Add to that less activity in our daily lives and it’s not a good combination. Obviously the more active you are the more you need meat. My experience is that in endurance sports you can get really wrecked if you don’t eat meat after a few days.

The Bruce

He was mostly vegetarian, although he ate some meat from time to time.

So, Hitler was mostly vegetarian, while Gandhi was a strict vegetarian, and so on this basis the vegetarians end up getting tarred with the megalomaniac warmonger brush? Makes perfect sense to me.

So, Hitler was mostly vegetarian, while Gandhi was a strict vegetarian, and so on this basis the vegetarians end up getting tarred with the megalomaniac warmonger brush? Makes perfect sense to me.
No, no, just those vegetarians that insist you must eat only veggies because otherwise you're plundering the earth and being the worst thing that ever walked on it. The vegetarians that let you be and simply follow vegetarianism out of health or religious reasons are called vegeghandis.

So, Hitler was mostly vegetarian, while Gandhi was a strict vegetarian, and so on this basis the vegetarians end up getting tarred with the megalomaniac warmonger brush? Makes perfect sense to me.
Blame Greenland

Really, when you think about it, it’s vegetarians who are the really cruel killers. Most of their food is still alive and suffering when they eat it. It’s like eating a living animal. Plants have feelings too. But just try to tell that to those cruel vegetarians.

When has a biologist ever used the term 'devolve' as a counterpart to the word 'evolve'?Aww, crap, now I have to remember where I read an article using devolve. Damn you.

This biology dictionary has the term in it -
http://www.biology-online.org/search.php?search=devolve

I think Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn have, but they claim women and blacks are less intelligent than white men... so...

Oh... I found what I did wrong... I got my terms muddled. 'Dysgenics' has been used in the way I described devolve.

No, no, just those vegetarians that insist you must eat only veggies because otherwise you're plundering the earth and being the worst thing that ever walked on it. The vegetarians that let you be and simply follow vegetarianism out of health or religious reasons are called vegeghandis.

But this is missing the point: Gandhi was equally insistent as Hitler was, he just applied radically different methods to force his will on others. He is not famed for just shrugging his shoulders and saying 'pity about colonialism, but what can you do?' - the opposite in fact.

If you look at archeological digs from 20,000 years ago, you'll find animals that have been killed and butchered. If you find homonid camps from a million years ago that belonged to Australeopithicines, you'll find crushed bone fragments from where they smashed the bone to get to the marrow. The idea that humans are naturally vegetarian simply holds no water unless you want to define "human" as "the last common ancestor between humans and gorilla", gorilla being the most closely related vegetarian great ape.

Oh... I found what I did wrong... I got my terms muddled. 'Dysgenics' has been used in the way I described devolve.

Thank you for your grace: the only real evolve/devolve interplay I can think of is the one put forward by Devo.

But this is missing the point: Gandhi was equally insistent as Hitler was, he just applied radically different methods to force his will on others. He is not famed for just shrugging his shoulders and saying 'pity about colonialism, but what can you do?' - the opposite in fact.
Sure, vegeghandis insist on you turning to vegetarianism but won't actually force you or use violent means to do so, as vegenazis are known to do. The vegetarians that just give up are called vegechamberlains.

The vegetarians that just give up are called vegechamberlains.

Well if nothing else this a relief after the ongoing stream of francobaiting that I've become accustomed to here.

I remember once a published list of historical figures who didn’t smoke, drink, and were vegetarian. It was of course a whose who of brutal dictators and psychopaths. It was obviously a filtered list (since Buddha didn’t make the cut) but it did show that without smoking, drinking, and meat eating many people obviously got a bit wound up, if they weren’t deeply sustained by balanced spiritualism. Of course I have no doubt that some studies could be done by the Meat Packing Industry to support this. :)

Well if nothing else this a relief after the ongoing stream of francobaiting that I've become accustomed to here.
I aim to please :D

Given that the claim is made by all kinds of colour of vegetarian, and is not limited solely to the fringes, why not just use the term 'vegetarian'?

Because not all vegetarians believe it.

Frankly, if you believe that we're "herbivores" just because we share these traits in that chart, I don't care what the correct term is for you.

I mean how do they explain chimpanzees? They have characteristics of "herbivores" but eat meat, as we do. Oops, I guess maybe that chart isn't really God's Word on Earth.

Thank you for your grace: the only real evolve/devolve interplay I can think of is the one put forward by Devo.No problem. Nothing wrong with admitting you got something wrong...

Though I still think my point about evolution being progressive stands... so I'm not really admitting much.

Oops, I guess maybe that chart isn't really God's Word on Earth.

...

Comparative anatomy works on the simple and demonstrable fact that the biological form usually defines function.

Because not all vegetarians believe it.

Yes, but surely this goes both ways - not all vegetarian extremists believe it either. Your argument doesn't really seem to be centred on your problem here - what seems to really offend you is the attitude of these people to their fellow man, not what they believe about the exact nature of the human digestive system, or am I completely off the mark in suggesting this?

Yes, but surely this goes both ways - not all vegetarian extremists believe it either. Your argument doesn't really seem to be centred on your problem here - what seems to really offend you is the attitude of these people to their fellow man, not what they believe about the exact nature of the human digestive system, or am I completely off the mark in suggesting this?

Yes, they believe a majority of fellow men are actually murderers. That angers me. I know a guy who was murdered, and it's not the same thing as eating a fucking hamburger.

My problem with them is thus with both is their attitude AND their beliefs.

And since most people would become nazis given the right circumstance, I'm not singling out vegetarian extremists with the reference.

I know a guy who was murdered, and it's not the same thing as eating a fucking hamburger.

My problem with them is thus with both is their attitude AND their beliefs.

Yes, but there is still a disparity between the two statements:

a.) Mankind is physiologically more similar to herbivores than to omnivores or carnivores.

and

b.) Meat is murder.

Neither one entails the other.

If there's anything more annoying than vegenazis, it's organic vegenazis because not only does it have to be vegetables, it has to be vegables that were grown organically or "naturally". Please...
What isn't organic or natural about vegetables? I was out with my housemate and she was disappointed that some place we went to eat didn't have "natural" sugar. What other kind of sugar is there? Unnatural sugar? About the only way that I could think to make unnatural sugar is to take sugarplum fairies, dip them in liquid nitrogen, and smash them with a hammer until they turn into powder!

I think there is just a tendency in people to want to be (blank)-er than thou.

If there's anything more annoying than vegenazis, it's organic vegenazis because not only does it have to be vegetables, it has to be vegables that were grown organically or "naturally". Please...
What isn't organic or natural about vegetables? I was out with my housemate and she was disappointed that some place we went to eat didn't have "natural" sugar. What other kind of sugar is there? Unnatural sugar? About the only way that I could think to make unnatural sugar is to take sugarplum fairies, dip them in liquid nitrogen, and smash them with a hammer until they turn into powder!

I think there is just a tendency in people to want to be (blank)-er than thou.

Well, I think that the problem with the sugar was not so much the sugar itself but how it's made. Generally speaking, unless you get special kind of sugar, then the standard granulated fare in your house was originally strained through filters made of cow bone. So it's not the kind of sugar but the manufacturing/purification process that offends vegetarians, although even many vegetarians don't know why they aren't supposed to eat sugar.

Humans becoming Social or “Moral” Herbivores does not make a species Herbivores. Neither does the questionable practice of some Vegans of forcing their carnivorous pets to become vegan pets.

It's as absurd as charging a lion with murder for eating a gazelle or charging a bear with murdering its prey. Why would one animal eating meat be acceptable and another not? It's not like humans materialized here last week from their alien planet or anything. We are the evolved hunter gatherers of our world. Note the word hunter.

I think part of the reason our brains developed to the way they are now is from eating meat. Some purely vegetarian prehistoric ape species went extinct because their minds [or brains, whatever] didn't adapt. So our species, I think, is omnivorous.

Yes, but there is still a disparity between the two statements:

a.) Mankind is physiologically more similar to herbivores than to omnivores or carnivores.

and

b.) Meat is murder.

Neither one entails the other.

If you want to postulate the hypothetical existence of those who believe b but not a, fine. It's irrelevant.

If you want to postulate the hypothetical existence of those who believe b but not a, fine. It's irrelevant.

I believe that in the western world the slaughter of animals for their consumption is needless, cruel and essentially immoral - I do not term it 'murder', but that is probably only a matter of degree - whereas I believe that humans are omnivores, but omnivores with free will.

Seems like I'm not a million miles away from the 'b but not a' category.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone?No. Panda's don't eat meat. Even though they have a carnivore build (consequently they have to eat the whole day through to get enough nutrition).

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Vegetarianazis love to point out that humans are naturally herbivores, not omnivores. They almost always refer in such arguments, to the chart above or a derivative thereof.

So, is this correct? Is that chart correct, for mammals, in determining a being's diet from anatomy alone? Are humans actually just... "herbivores that are stupid and eat meat?":rolleyes:
Good grief, if humans were naturally herbivores, we wouldn't eat meat. Our digestive systems would be far more optimized to deal with plant fibre, which is not the case.

It’s true that even herbivores will eat meat if they’re starving. There are cases of starving livestock eating carrion. The fact that we don’t need to be starving and desperate to eat meat makes a big difference. We need to eat greens and things that eat greens. One or the other won’t satisfy our dietary requirements. Bears for instance do spend a lot of time grazing on greens, but also hunt or scavenge carrion when they can.

It’s very true that our anatomy and archaeological record does nothing to substantiate any claim of us being herbivores. In fact it shows us to be omnivores that ate anything that couldn’t outrun, outthink, or outfight us.

If there's anything more annoying than vegenazis, it's organic vegenazis because not only does it have to be vegetables, it has to be vegables that were grown organically or "naturally". Please...
What isn't organic or natural about vegetables? When they have chemical fertilizers, it would be argued that that isn't natural, especially since there aren't any studies which show the long-term effects of such fertilizers on humans.

It's as absurd as charging a lion with murder for eating a gazelle or charging a bear with murdering its prey. Why would one animal eating meat be acceptable and another not? Exactly. Why is cannibalism unacceptable?

Why is cannibalism unacceptable?It brings a few health risks (diseases mostly, but also high concentrations of toxins/heave metals).
And of course if it entails homicide, that'd be detrimental to a society.

Few countries actually have any laws against eating dead people though. Usually they have to resort to other laws to deal with it.

It brings a few health risks (diseases mostly, but also high concentrations of toxins/heave metals).
And of course if it entails homicide, that'd be detrimental to a society.

Few countries actually have any laws against eating dead people though. Usually they have to resort to other laws to deal with it.Lol. Good to know.

Though we have outgrown evolution somewhat. Most people, no matter how stupid or unhealthy or accident prone are able to survive to a ripe old age with a fair few grandchildren. Whereas yuppies tend to go into relationships where they become DINKs and forget to have children, and so not passing on any genetic traits that helped them get to where are (I presuming that is wasn't due to daddy's connections).
Evolution is not such that a species 'outgrows it'.

How exactly does being taller help a human to survive in a western urban environment?
If you are refering to 'natural selection', (and assuming that any 'tallerness' stems from genetic/evolutionary change) for some human beings, their social environment is such that 'being taller' makes them more likely to be successful in gaining a 'mate' - in some societies being tall add to one's reproductive success.
Besides, not all humans are getting taller. If I remember right, Europeans are getting taller, but Americans are getting shorter.
This could reflect any number of things, but the fact that populations in two different environments show different trends, would certainly not negate the occurance of evolution. If one could show the trends in genotypes were the direct expression of phenotypes, then one could more or less conclude that indeed evolutionary trends were being observed in one or both 'populations'.

And that the change in height is better explained by a change in environmental factors such as diet. The diet of the average American has declined in recent decades, whereas Europeans are still getting a better and more varied diet than they were a century ago despite eating huge amounts of junk food.
It is certainly true that evolution is not always present in every case of where trends in phenotype changes (visible changes, height for instance) are observed.

Well if the population is getting taller due to genetics, and there is no apparent advantage ti being taller other than exploiting an instinct in the human brain, the the species can hardly be said to be evolving. Changing yes, but not evolving. Evolving impies getting better. And like you said, taller doesn't mean better.
Evolution doesnt imply getting better.

If evolve only meant change, then why would it have a counterpart 'devolve' which doesn't mean stationary or static.
I have never used 'devolve' used in any discussion about 'evolutionary changes'.
Evolution describes change that stems from any one (or more usually combination) of a number of 'evolutionary forces'. 'Better' is not relevent, the presence and effect of a 'evolutionary force/s' is/are.

Evolution is a process of 'rolling' forwards, of progress, whereas devolvution is a process of rolling backwards, of regression.
Not when it comes to biological evolution, literature perhaps.

However, the meaning of evolutionary biology is/was part of heated debate between Gould and Dawkins. Gould believed that natural selection isn't always progressive and sometimes organisms can actually devolve. Whereas Dawkins believes that natural selection was always progressive. So, as I've come to understand it evolution implies progression. Whereas natural selection isn't always progressive.
Like we can decide what 'better' means for millions of years since gone environments, and then apply that to two 'specimens', which in total consists of 4cm of the lower maximus (lower jaw) with one 'intact' tooth, a 2cm square section of the cranial (back of the skull), the entire upper mandible bone - (upper jaw bone) (in 8 seperate pieces, bonus assorted teeth), to decide if the speculated changes between the specimens (which are dated 1,000000 years apart in age - but presumed in the same species line) represent evolution or devolution....
Wow, you dont want much do you?!:(
Seriously, it is both counterproductive and unscientific to expect 'normative' judgements like 'better'.
Why on earth would science (ie evolutionary biologists) attach a normative prerequisite to the definition of a technical used term, rather than an employ an entirely empirical definition?

And of course we are omnivores!

We have incissors and enzymes to break down meat as well as plants. Thus we are omnivores. Vegans tend to show signs of malnutrition, an ex of mine was a moral vegan and had to ingest additional nutrition so that her hair wouldnt thin out.

No, no, just those vegetarians that insist you must eat only veggies because otherwise you're plundering the earth and being the worst thing that ever walked on it. The vegetarians that let you be and simply follow vegetarianism out of health or religious reasons are called vegeghandis.

Cool! From now you may call me: Gift-of-god, vegeghandi! (If you could say it with the exclamation mark, that would be nice too!)

Consider this image:

http://www.boneclones.com/images/ko-164-set_web-lg.jpg

As you can see from that picture, humans have many teeth to suggest herbavoria, but the frontal teeth are serrated and suggest the strength to eat meat.

In other words, we have crunching teeth and ripping teeth - this means we are OMNIVORES. period. the end.:rolleyes:

Cool! From now you may call me: Gift-of-god, vegeghandi! (If you could say it with the exclamation mark, that would be nice too!)

Wouldn't you prefer it if we actually spelled 'Gandhi' correctly?

Sure, vegeghandis insist on you turning to vegetarianism but won't actually force you or use violent means to do so, as vegenazis are known to do. The vegetarians that just give up are called vegechamberlains.

Oh wait. I guess I'm not a vegeghandi.:( I am a mere vegechamberlain.

About the only way that I could think to make unnatural sugar is to take sugarplum fairies, dip them in liquid nitrogen, and smash them with a hammer until they turn into powder!

With modern industrial processes, this is actually much cheaper than evaporating sugar cane.

Oh wait. I guess I'm not a vegeghandi.:( I am a mere vegechamberlain.
You could be a vegechurchill: "Never have so many been eaten so much by so few"

Wouldn't you prefer it if we actually spelled 'Gandhi' correctly?

I think I spelled Chamberlain correctly.

I believe that in the western world the slaughter of animals for their consumption is needless, cruel and essentially immoral - I do not term it 'murder', but that is probably only a matter of degree - whereas I believe that humans are omnivores, but omnivores with free will.

Seems like I'm not a million miles away from the 'b but not a' category.

And...?

And...?

Thus I am pretty close to an example of a group whose existence you declared to be only 'hypothetical'.

Our earliest tool use was to scavange other animals' kills. We used hand axes to break into bone to eat the marrow.

No we aren't vegetarian.

Also, vegies like to point out that you can get a full protein by combining this and that food, none of which grow together in a local environment.


Peak Oil and its resultant effect on global food distribution is going to test these vegetarians and their ability to use that food combining.

Thus I am pretty close to an example of a group whose existence you declared to be only 'hypothetical'.

Yeah, and...? What the hell is your point?

Yeah, and...? What the hell is your point?

That their status is likely to be real, rather than purely hypothetical.