Why do ppl hate veggies?

Sapsorrow · 23-10-2008 11:58pm #1

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!

24-10-2008 12:07am

I thought you meant why do people hate vegetables.
I was struck by a horrific thought today as I picked up a punnet of persimon.
What if all the foreigners go home, and we are left with a system that caters to a shower of vegetable haters again.
I can't go back. Seriously...I'll have to emigrate.

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 12:09am

What's persimon?

Anyways op there are no "hardcore" meateaters, that's silly talk. But there is a stereotype of puritanical vegetarians, who like to get in people's faces. If you aren't one great but there's not much you can do either way, unless you go round to all the hardcore veggies and tell them to cop on.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:14am

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.

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 12:15am

If you hold any view strongly, you must be prepared to defend it from criticism and ridicule. The same rings through for favourite sports teams, fashion sense and even religion!

I personally have trouble understanding how a human - biologically programmed to be omnivorous - can exclude themselves from eating meat. I do understand the moral side of things, but vegetarians often come across as either slightly hypocritical (ie. they might eat fish, or wear leather...) or militant. I wouldn't hate anybody for being a vegetarian, but I might try to discuss it with them to further my understanding, and put forward my own views, of course!

brendansmith · 24-10-2008 12:16am

Veggies are usually quite preachy and mention that they are infact veggies at any given oppertunity.

T a r a L ' a r i o n

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 12:19am

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.

You don't see any discrepancy between your statements on puritanical veggies and aggressive meat eaters? You are labelling people who don't eat the same way as you, and then think it doesn't come out in the way you act?

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:20am

No need to be insulting brendan

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:22am

no I'm not saying all meat eaters are a certain type of person at all, it's more that there are some who think they can just have a go at you just because you're a veggie and it just seems really rude. I never question anybodies choices regarding religion, morals, ethics etc I think ppl deserve respect for their choices once they are harmless to others

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 12:25am

But you are labelling people who eat meat aggressive and hard core meat eaters!

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 12:27am

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!

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".

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:28am

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.

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 12:32am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I personally have trouble understanding how a human - biologically programmed to be omnivorous

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.

Edit - this is just my opinion but, ironically eating meat can actually work against survival in present times. There are many studies which have proven links between eating certain types of meat and developing certain types of cancer/obesity/illnesses/etc.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:36am

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.

Blazer · 24-10-2008 12:36am

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".

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..

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 12:38am

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.

Your post suggests that the default biological position is vegetarianism, and humanity only ate meat out of necessity.

Humanity, biologically, is omnivorous. You can dispute the reasons for this fact, but you cannot dispute the fact itself.

Nowadays, we can choose not to eat meat and still maintain a healthy diet. However, that is a conscious choice, and flies in the face of our evolution and our environment.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:39am

Neither side of the debate should generalise about the other, why so much hatred? why can ppl not just respect each others choices?

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 12:40am

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..

This rant just proves my point even further. Why are you so offended by what I said?

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:44am

funny starting a blog on this and straight away it has attracted the sort of anti-veggie attacks i was talking about

brendansmith · 24-10-2008 12:45am

khrystyna100 wrote: »

No need to be insulting brendan

Opinion based on observation, thats what was asked!:p

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 12:45am

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.

It's generally accepted by scientists that the main catalyst for the development of the human brain was the consumption of cooked meat, which then required less calories to digest while still preserving most of the nutritional value. This surplus was directed to the development of our brains!

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.

Making ecologically and ethically sound decisions and gratifying our primal urges are not mutually exclusive. It is ecologically A-OK to eat another animal.

It is the issue of ethics and morality where I find the biggest gulf with vegetarians. I shed no tears for a slaughtered chicken or cow, and I struggle to understand those who do.

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 12:46am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Your post suggests that the default biological position is vegetarianism, and humanity only ate meat out of necessity.

Humanity, biologically, is omnivorous.

Wrong again

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.

I suggest reading the entire article about the human omnivore myth, it's actually written by a meat-eater and covers this argument from many different angles.

http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 12:46am

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.

Ok that's good, thank you for clearing that up.

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.

I heard the same thing said about cooked meat (well that it was harder to digest raw) can you provide a link? This seems to me to be the sort of thing that science see saws on every few years.
As for primal urges, its foolish to think that we are not governed by animal instinct to a very large degree, even if we don't have to hunt to survive any more. If you are familiar with the concept of id and ego you'll know that primal urges are not something you can simply do away with, and that it would be illogical to do so.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

funny starting a blog on this and straight away it has attracted the sort of anti-veggie attacks i was talking about

Link?

Fighting Irish · 24-10-2008 12:47am

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I've been a veggie on and off

:rolleyes:

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:47am

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.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:50am

sorry no link but try science direct or PUBMED, they're good for science journals etc.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:52am

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

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 12:55am

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.

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.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

sorry no link but try science direct or PUBMED, they're good for science journals etc.

I don't think I can access Pubmed, don't you have to be a science student?

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

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?

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:55am

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Give me a break I started when I was eleven yrs old and i had a couple of faltering moments as a young teenager

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 12:57am

Oshare Bones wrote:

Wrong again

I'll have to cordially disagree.

From the Vegetarianism Resource Group, perhaps more reputable and researched than your link.

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.]

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Everything from the placement of our eyes, to the shape of our jaws and teeth, to our digestive systems would suggest that humans are omnivorous. To suggest that humans are vegetarian by nature is ridiculous - and I don't care what ill-researched, garishly-coloured website says otherwise.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 12:58am

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?

Sorry it wasn't meant to be taken soliterally, obviously they're very different things but I was making a point about repression of animal instincts, that the repression of some is considered acceptable and indeed vital while the repression of another is considered by many impossible/inconceivable.

Don't think you have to be a science student, I am but don't see how they can check anyway

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 1:01am

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.

How much water, land and resources would be wasted to meet the entire world's dietary needs if they were all vegetarian?

Lots of land, water and food are used to produce meat because, well, a lot of people eat meat.

Is beef-production the most efficient way to produce protein to meet humanity's dietary needs? I don't know. I don't care. It tastes nice.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 1:02am

it's very easy not to care when you come from a world of plenty alright, thats the problem with the world

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 1:10am

it's very easy not to care when you come from a world of plenty alright, thats the problem with the world

It's very easy to care when you come from a world of plenty. I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians-by-choice in sub-saharan Africa or other impoverished areas of the planet.

Vegetarianism is only a practical choice to those with the resources and ability to fulfill their dietary requirements from other sources.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 1:11am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's very easy to care when you come from a world of plenty. I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians-by-choice in sub-saharan Africa or other impoverished areas of the planet.

Vegetarianism is only a practical choice to those with the resources and ability to fulfill their dietary requirements from other sources.

dude what about India and China? tradittionally very low meat consumption and in many sub-populations veggies altogether!

brianthebard · 24-10-2008 1:14am

khrystyna100 wrote: »

dude what about India and China? tradittionally very low meat consumption and in many sub-populations veggies altogether!

Sub saharan Africa is not the same as India or China. Try again and this time think before typing

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 1:16am

brianthebard wrote: »

Sub saharan Africa is not the same as India or China. Try again and this time think before typing

obviously not the same thing but you were referring to impoverished parts of the world no? this they do have in common.

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 1:19am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I'll have to cordially disagree.

From the Vegetarianism Resource Group, perhaps more reputable and researched than your link.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Everything from the placement of our eyes, to the shape of our jaws and teeth, to our digestive systems would suggest that humans are omnivorous. To suggest that humans are vegetarian by nature is ridiculous - and I don't care what ill-researched, garishly-coloured website says otherwise.

Firstly, nowhere once did I say we are vegetarian by nature. All that website proves is at one point in history we were omnivores. I will highlight this in bold because you seem to be having difficulty understanding me Present-day humans are not omnivores. We are capable of being so, just like we are capable of being cannibals. I suggest having a read of Dr. Richard Leakey's publications.

Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines."

The long human intestinal tract actually makes it dangerous for people to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, and meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through the intestines. Many studies have also shown that meat can cause colon cancer in humans.
According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat.

Unlike natural carnivores, we are physically and psychologically unable to rip animals limb from limb and eat and digest their raw flesh. Even cooked meat is likely to cause human beings, but not natural carnivores, to suffer from food poisoning, heart disease, and other ailments.

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 1:26am

Present-day humans are not omnivores

What are we?

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 1:34am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

What are we?

Herbivores who are not suited to eating meat. according to Dr Leakey. Here are some more interesting extracts from his work.

Physiology
People who pride themselves on being part of the human hunter tradition should take a second look at the story of human evolution. Prehistoric evidence indicates that humans developed hunting skills relatively recently and that most of our short, meat-eating past was spent scavenging and eating almost anything in order to survive; even then, meat was a tiny part of our caloric intake.

Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all of these questions, congratulations—you're a normal human herbivore—like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat.

Although many modern humans eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the honorary title of "omnivore," we are anatomically herbivorous. Biologists have established that animals who share physical characteristics also share a common diet. Comparing the anatomy of carnivores with our own clearly illustrates that we were not designed to eat meat.

Teeth and Nails
To contrast human physiology with that of carnivores, start at the beginning of the digestive tract. Teeth, nails, and jaw structure indicate that nature intended for people to eat a plant-based diet. They have much shorter and softer fingernails than animals and pathetically small "canine" teeth (they're canine in name only). In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.

The jaws of carnivores move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow it whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, a movement that allows them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores, human back molars are flat and allow the grinding of fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars. If humans had been meant to eat meat, they would have the sharp teeth and claws of carnivores. Instead, their jaw structure, flat molars, and lack of claws indicate that they are best suited for a plant-based diet.

Stomach Acidity
After using their sharp claws and teeth to capture and kill their prey, carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to do most of the digestive work. The stomach acid of carnivores actually plays a dual role-besides breaking down flesh, the acid also kills the dangerous bacteria that would otherwise sicken or kill the meat-eater.

As illustrated in the chart below, our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong acids aren't needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables. In comparing the stomach acidity of carnivores and herbivores, it is obvious that humans fall into the latter category. We can cook meat to kill some of the bacteria and make it easier to chew, but it's clear that humans, unlike all natural carnivores, are not designed to easily digest meat.

Intestinal Length
Evidence of our herbivorous nature is also found in the length of our intestines. Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through it relatively quickly, before it has a chance to rot and cause illness. Humans, on the other hand, have intestinal tracts that are much longer than carnivores of comparable size. Like other herbivores, longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from a plant-based diet.

The long human intestinal tract actually makes it dangerous for people to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, and meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through the intestines. Many studies have also shown that meat can cause colon cancer in humans.

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 1:41am

OK.
Just to absolutely clarify here:

You, in the 21st century, are proposing the humans are (and always have been?) by nature, vegetarian. You are proposing that meat-eating is a behavioural abnormality in the human brain that goes against natural dispositions? Have I got it right so far?

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 1:59am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

OK.
Just to absolutely clarify here:

You, in the 21st century, are proposing the humans are (and always have been?) by nature, vegetarian. You are proposing that meat-eating is a behavioural abnormality in the human brain that goes against natural dispositions? Have I got it right so far?

I am saying physically, genetically and anatomically we are structured to be vegetarians. This becomes obvious when you compare our bodies to a creature who eats meat only (E.g. lions) and then to a creature who eats fruit/plants only (E.g. gorillas). I do believe we are anatomically more similar to the gorilla. Address each of those 4 sub-headings in my previous post if you want to argue with me.

Dont be at yourself · 24-10-2008 2:16am

I am saying physically, genetically and anatomically we are structured to be vegetarians. This becomes obvious when you compare our bodies to a creature who eats meat only (E.g. lions) and then to a creature who eats fruit/plants only (E.g. gorillas). I do believe we are anatomically more similar to the gorilla. Address each of those 4 sub-headings in my previous post if you want to argue with me.

Frankly, there is no point arguing with you. You will reject out of hand obvious biological indications of meat-eating such as the frontal orientation of our eyes and ears, as well as the indisputable historical evidence that not only Homo Sapiens, but also Homo Erectus whom we evolved from, had natural disposition towards meat-eating and an omnivore diet.

I'm not going to post links, as it is a futile exercise. I could find tomes and tomes of resources that would support me. You can no doubt do likewise. We'll have to agree to disagree, because, really, life is too short.

And I'm going for a ham sandwich before bedtime.

Oshare Bones · 24-10-2008 2:28am

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Frankly, there is no point arguing with you. You will reject out of hand obvious biological indications of meat-eating such as the frontal orientation of our eyes and ears

I read the link you pasted but what has position of our eyes/ears got to do with anything? And regarding ME rejecting biological indications, you completely ignored my previous post which addressed 4 key biological traits that promote the vegetarian human argument.

CDfm · 24-10-2008 3:09am

first of all its the superior attitude and vegetarians aint half sanctimonious.
They ruin meals for others with how can you eat .....? type questions.

Flatulence is also an issue. If you are having vegeterians to dinner you have to spend twice as long preparing.

But the ultiate for me is vegeterian resteraunts - you cant go in and order a meat option and if you bring your own meat they go all huffy on you.

Slaphead07 · 24-10-2008 11:35am

there does seem to be clear evidence that meat eating makes people incredibly stupid.

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 11:40am

Slaphead07 wrote: »

there does seem to be clear evidence that meat eating makes people incredibly stupid.

Are you serious?

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 11:41am

Actually just read the post before yours and I see what you mean now! lol

CDfm · 24-10-2008 11:49am

Slaphead07 wrote: »

there does seem to be clear evidence that meat eating makes people incredibly stupid.

but it tastes soooo goood mmmmmmm;)

and tuna makes you smart - its got Omega 3 oil found only in fish mmmmmmmmmmm fish

And 95% of cow methane comes from their mouths and noses- methane is a greenhouse gas- so vegetarians are doing nothing to save the ozone layer.:mad:

Aha - yer argument is demolished just like that - i am very very against sweeping generalisations

Sapsorrow · 24-10-2008 11:54am

CDfm wrote: »

but it tastes soooo goood mmmmmmm;)

and tuna makes you smart - its got Omega 3 oil found only in fish mmmmmmmmmmm fish

Do your research first, omega three is found in many plant sources such as flax seed, green leafy veg, nuts, seeds and various oils such as canola and soy.

Blazer · 24-10-2008 1:31pm

Oshare Bones wrote: »

This rant just proves my point even further. Why are you so offended by what I said?

I'm not offended just amused.
Your posted about meatusers being insecure and actually came across as being insecure yourself.

Why do ppl hate veggies?

Comments