khrystyna100 wrote: » Thats the thing I don't think I've ever met an in your face vegetarian and I know and have known loads over the years so it seems like an unfair and unrealistic assumption of the aggressive meat eaters to me.
khrystyna100 wrote: » I've been a veggie on and off (mainly on by a long shot though) for over 10 yrs and during that time I have found myself under attack time and time again by hardcore meat eaters who think that just because I'm a vegetarian they have a right to attack my choices, criticise them, ridicule them and generally try to get up my back about it. This includes my mates too not just dickheads! why do ppl think they have the right to do this? If it were a religion it would not be acceptable! I am sick of having to defend myself against these ppl who also constantly assume I'm some sort of preaching puritan who's going to try and convert them to vegetarianism and make them feel guilty for eating meat, which I have never done! IN fact I never bring up vegetarianism except with my veggie friends cos it's not worth the aggro, anyone else experience the same? I don't give them grief or ridicule their choice to eat meat so why should they do it to us? It's so disrespectful! Thankfully i live in an all vegetarian house now yay!
NekkidBibleMan wrote: » I personally have trouble understanding how a human - biologically programmed to be omnivorous
Oshare Bones wrote: » My opinion on this is those meat-eaters are actually slightly insecure about their choice and don't need to be reminded of their insecurities by talking to you. I doubt there's a single meat-eater in the world who hasn't thought just once "I wonder did this pig/cow/chicken/etc suffer before making it to my plate".
That's actually rubbish, we are programmed to survive in any way possible, not programmed to be omnivores. There was a (long) period in history when we needed to hunt/kill and eat animals in order to survive. Now though we have reached a point in evolution where is not necessary to eat animals in order to survive, hence the existence of vegetarianism. Because there is no vitamin/nutrient contained in meat which can't be acquired elsewhere.
Mathew Reilly wrote: » And we have a winner!!!!...it's condescending ppl like yourself who presume they're right "the meat eaters are insecure".. oh god lol...what a stupid and meaningless comment. This is why most people hate vegertarians. In your face "I'm a veggie you cow murdering bastard", condescending, arrogant and thinking the choice they made should be followed by everyone else..blah blah blah... My sister is vegetarian and wouldn't dream of lecturing the rest of our family on our food choices..but some people just can't help themselves. In a way I think a lot of veggies (not all ) have an insecurity complex and act like this to make them feel better about themselves..
khrystyna100 wrote: » No need to be insulting brendan
Also many scientists believe we evolved to eat raw meat with all it's natural enzymes intact, not cooked meat which is very indigestable compared to other food stuffs and this in many ways negates any health benifits that come from eating meat.
We are surely emotionally evolved enough as a speices at this stage to be able to make decisions based on what is ecologicall and ethically responsible rather than trying to gratify our primal urges all the time.
NekkidBibleMan wrote: » Your post suggests that the default biological position is vegetarianism, and humanity only ate meat out of necessity. Humanity, biologically, is omnivorous.
The "Paleolithic argument" runs something like this: The proto-human was indeed a frugivore (eating primarily fruit, such as modern chimps) 50 million years ago (MYA) to 2 MYA, when the "appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time" coincided with "increased meat-eating"URL="http://beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml"]W1[/URL. Well, that's the end of the argument, as its fatal flaw is revealed: the fact is that "increased meat-eating" occurred ONLY because of tool use, and since tools, including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level.
khrystyna100 wrote: » No i'm not, I'm saying there are some ppl like that out there, it would be ridiculous to say that all meat eaters are aggressive or hardcore about it. But I have come across some ppl like that in the past but i know many more meat eaters who are not like that at all.
khrystyna100 wrote: » Also many scientists believe we evolved to eat raw meat with all it's natural enzymes intact, not cooked meat which is very indigestable compared to other food stuffs and this in many ways negates any health benifits that come from eating meat. We are surely emotionally evolved enough as a speices at this stage to be able to make decisions based on what is ecologicall and ethically responsible rather than trying to gratify our primal urges all the time.
khrystyna100 wrote: » funny starting a blog on this and straight away it has attracted the sort of anti-veggie attacks i was talking about
khrystyna100 wrote: » I've been a veggie on and off
khrystyna100 wrote: » the level of meat consumption inthe developed world is far far from ecological friendly, look at the amount of water, land and food that is wasted to produce beef inthe states, these resources could be much better used elsewhere.
khrystyna100 wrote: » sorry no link but try science direct or PUBMED, they're good for science journals etc.
khrystyna100 wrote: » Some have a primal urge to force others into having sex with them to satisfy their primal urge to procreate but we do not consider this acceptable
Fighting Irish wrote: » :rolleyes:
Oshare Bones wrote: Wrong again
Evidence of Humans as Omnivores Archeological Record As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants. Cell Types Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material. Fermenting Vats Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations. Jaws Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth. The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations. Salivary Glands These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group. Intestines Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups. Conclusion Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. [Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]
brianthebard wrote: » I won't argue that farming in the US has taken a wrong turn but that doesn't mean you should consider Irish or European farmers in the same bracket. I don't think I can access Pubmed, don't you have to be a science student? Can we please take a step back from comparing meat eating with rape? You wonder why people might have a problem with your views, when you are so willing to connect a crime like rape to eating meat?