# The Mass Western Delusion of the Fictitious Carnivorous Human



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Think about the last time you spent time with a dog or cat. How did you feel? Did you feel hungry or salivate? Did you fantasize about ripping it's flesh from its bones, fur and organs and all, with your bare teeth, totally raw? No?

How about the last time you visited a horse in a stable. Did the rich scent of its hay, hair and feces make you feel ravenous and did you start to drool? Did you begin to have the irresistible urge to take a bite out of Mr. Ed while he was still alive? No?

That's because you're not a carnivore. Raw unspiced flesh is repulsive to humans, and things like fur and certain organs are entirely inedible. Furthermore, we are more likely to be grossed out by a mammal, bird or fishes natural living smell than made hungry by it. And of course, your impulse towards that dog, cat or horse is one of nurturing or friendship, not appetite. In fact in Western society you can be imprisoned for harming a member of these species and diagnosed as a sociopath?

So why do you imagine you'd feel differently about a pet pig or goat, or that you'd feel more like eating your pet chicken than pet parrot?

It's highly likely humans only adapted to eating other animals under deplorable conditions of cold or famine, and in the beginning it was probably the leavings of a real carnivore, or an animal already dead by other means. Thousands of years later, just admit, you have zero desire to munch on Fluffy. 

Most of you have been conditioned to see meat as food like a form of cultural brain washing since childhood, by hiding it inside nuggets, burgers and soups, and covering it in seasonings, spices, and sauces. In reality 99 percent of you as small children never would have chosen to take a bite out of your pet or even your neighbors farm animals instinctively. Though instinctively you craved your mother's milk and would naturally eat fruit raw and whole.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

_"Omnivorous"_


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

I mean, the last time you sat on the lawn, did you have an urge to start eating the grass.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

I stopped eating meat because I don't have the heart to kill animals myself. We buy meat neatly packaged, cleaned, with no connection to the animal...you forget it comes from a cute, innocent cow.. I still eat fish though. I know it's hypocritical, but just like I wouldn't feel bad killing an insect, I have less empathy for seafood. 

I may eventually go fully vegan. I already cut out dairy because I'm lactose intolerant, so my diet is currently, err, "pesco-vegan"? Is that a thing? Soo ya. Almost there. Much better for the environment too~


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

There are lots of people who salivate at seeing raw meat, which is why they buy them at the butcher's. 
Some veggies also taste awful without seasoning, some are inedible or toxic unless cooked. People still raise and eat their animals on their own all over the world. Some eat raw meat and fish still. We don't experience predatory hunger most likely because we have food available all the time and we eat on a daily basis. To feel instinctive hunger you'd have to starve yourself a little first.
Like you say, humans adapted to eat meat and here we are, omnivores. Talking about vegan ethics is fine, but arguments such as these mostly show ignorance.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> _"Omnivorous"_


Prehistoric humans didn't actually hunt. They weren't hunter-gatherers, they were docile scavenger-gatherers who only ate their animal friends because of starvation. We've all been Jedi Mind-Tricked into believe this horrible lie.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Prehistoric humans didn't actually hunt.


I assume that was before the cave paintings.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> I assume that was before the cave paintings.


Those had pictures of animals on them. So it was probably before that.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

I tend to eat animals that are free range and pay more for this. We are all conditioned one way or another unfortunately. Personally I like meat. Fish and poultry too


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

-Sashimi 
-Rare steak 
-Raw oysters 
-Steak tartare 

Also: 

Every human culture knows how to use fire. And cooked meat smells and tastes delicious. If it didn't, vegetarians and vegans wouldn't spend all that money trying to create meat substitutes. 

Also: 

Watch these chimps devour a raw monkey. And their digestive systems are more tooled towards plants than human digestive systems.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

JayDubs said:


> -Sashimi
> -Rare steak
> -Raw oysters
> -Steak tartare
> ...


oh _stop_. You know those are all delicacies, not the norm. Your only argument is "it tastes good". That says a lot.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

sandcastle35 said:


> oh _stop_. You know those are all delicacies, not the norm. Your only argument is "it tastes good". That says a lot.


The deli ham I had today on my sandwich tasted good, but maybe it was also because of the cheese (milk) and mayo (egg).


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

At one time, there was no life on Earth, so, if we are talking earliest history is best, let's go back to THAT time. 

Your logic is ... less than best ... let's say.

CHANGE is a tautology. Deal with it.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

This is ridiculous.


Forest Nymph said:


> Think about the last time you spent time with a dog or cat. How did you feel? Did you feel hungry or salivate? Did you fantasize about ripping it's flesh from its bones, fur and organs and all, with your bare teeth, totally raw? No?


Think about the last time you were with a close friend or a relative. How did you feel? Did you feel hungry or salivate? Did you fantasize about ripping their flesh from its bones, fur and organs and all, with your bare teeth, totally raw? No?

Think about the last time a lion -- an obligate carnivore -- was with its pride. How did it feel? Did it feel hungry or salivate? Did it fantasize about ripping their flesh from their bones, fur and organs and all, with its bare teeth, totally raw? No?

That's because we psychologically accept pets as family members, parts of our social groups. _And this is hard-wired into all social hunters._ If it wasn't, how would the species even survive?


> How about the last time you visited a horse in a stable. Did the rich scent of its hay, hair and feces make you feel ravenous and did you start to drool? Did you begin to have the irresistible urge to take a bite out of Mr. Ed while he was still alive? No?


Actually watching horses cavort gets me a little hungry. I've been wanting to try horseflesh for a while. Unfortunately I'm not French.


> That's because you're not a carnivore.


Most _carnivores_ aren't _obligate_ carnivores. Even species like wolves -- well-known pack hunters -- can be omnivorous when necessary. _Felidae_ are the exception.


> Raw unspiced flesh is repulsive to humans,


Just because it's repulsive to _you_ doesn't mean it's repulsive to _everybody_. The Mongols, for example, were famous for consuming "raw, unspiced [horse] flesh" that they stored under their saddles! The celebrated French steak tartare is a nod to this tradition.

Incidentally, the American queasiness with raw meat is the exception, not the norm. German cookery has a dish built around raw pork meat, for example. And of course the most celebrated of Japanese dishes use raw fish. Heck, there's even a dish made of raw beef pounded into a thin sheet.


> and things like fur and certain organs are entirely inedible.


A brief list of edible organs including: brains, thyroids, livers, intestines, stomachs, kidneys, hearts, lungs, tongue, eyeballs (if you care to), marrow (which is _inside_ bone), gizzards, chicken feet, and trotters (believe it or not).

Incidentally, cats can't digest fur either, and they _are_ obligate carnivores. Where do you think _hairballs_ come from?


> Furthermore, we are more likely to be grossed out by a mammal, bird or fishes natural living smell than made hungry by it.


And has it occurred to you this is because most of us _don't live on farms?_ You are confusing an effect with a cause. Farmers have long known how intelligent pigs are, and such good pets ... and they still turn them into Christmas dinner.


> And of course, your impulse towards that dog, cat or horse is one of nurturing or friendship, not appetite. In fact in Western society you can be imprisoned for harming a member of these species and diagnosed as a sociopath?


Technically dog is a delicacy in Korea and South Korea a First World nation. Horseflesh is also consumed in several Western countries, such as France and Germany. Actually, in France, it's a cheaper option than beef. And countries that observe kosher and halal don't consume pork. Which reminds us that dietary restrictions are a _purely cultural_ phenomenon. And that you are again confusing American dietary practice with dietary practice common to the West.


> So why do you imagine you'd feel differently about a pet pig or goat, or that you'd feel more like eating your pet chicken than pet parrot?


_Because we treat our pets like little humans!_ Pets are a modern phenomenon anyway -- for most of human history, an animal in our care had to carry its weight, whether that meant being turned into dinner eventually, or being used for other tasks, such as hunting assistance (dogs) or pest control (cats). Guinea pigs were originally domesticated for meat, for example, and in Andean countries it's still common practice for them to be household animals until they end up on the dinner table.


> It's highly likely humans only adapted to eating other animals under deplorable conditions of cold or famine,


You do realize humans evolved in tropical environments, yes? As in: environments where cold is never a concern?



> and in the beginning it was probably the leavings of a real carnivore, or an animal already dead by other means.


Most carnivores scavenge at times. Yes, even lions and wolves. _T. rex,_ for example, mostly scavenged its meals.

So the real question, which you are completely eliding over because it contains a truth you don't want to face, is: why did the proto-hominids begin scavenging? The answer, most likely: _because it was there._ And the behavior likely started before we diverged from chimpanzees, too, because chimpanzees scavenge too. IIRC the current prevailing hypothesis is that incorporation of more meat in diet triggered some of the key changes that make hominids different than other primates, including growing brain size. Social omnivores and carnivores tend to have the biggest and most complexly developed brains of any species ... and we're no different.


> Thousands of years later, just admit, you have zero desire to munch on Fluffy.













> Most of you have been conditioned to see meat as food like a form of cultural brain washing since childhood, by hiding it inside nuggets, burgers and soups, and covering it in seasonings, spices, and sauces.


This is one of the most undilutedly ignorant things I have ever read. For example, it is clear here _someone_ has never read Homer. A common stock image in the Iliad and the Odyssey lingers over the process of animal sacrifice and turning it into meat. It also shows pure undiluted ignorance of the Bible. Why, pray tell, would the rules of kosher linger so much over what you can and can't do with meat if the culture wasn't already a meat-eating one? It is not that meat's somehow "snuck" in to our diet: it's that the industrial food processing and distribution system has divorced us from connecting what's in our fields to what's on our dinner tables, _and this is true of fruits and vegetables as well as meat._ Could you tell me, if pressed, what a spinach plant looks like in the field? Or a potato plant? What about rhubarb? banana? coconut?


> In reality 99 percent of you as small children never would have chosen to take a bite out of your pet


Repeating bullshit doesn't make it stink any less.


> or even your neighbors farm animals instinctively.


Since when do my neighbors raise farm animals? That's kind of the point I just made above. If I had ones that did, I'd probably ask after the harvest come butchering season. That's sort of what those community agricultural associations, whatever they're called, do, as it is.


> Though instinctively you craved your mother's milk and would naturally eat fruit raw and whole.


Actually I'm more likely to eat raw _meat_ than raw _fruit._ I've never cared for the taste of fructose.

Also there are plenty of fruits and vegetables that need to be processed to be made edible. Potatoes, yams (but not sweet potatoes!), cassava, and taro -- all of which are staple crops in various parts of the tropics -- spring immediately to mind, as does maize.

I don't give a shit about your personal food choices. That's your choice. 

*What I do give a shit about is whether or not you spew bullshit in defending your choice,* and a post like this, more packed with outright bullshit and verifiably _false_ information than a Donald Trump rally? Now _that_ really pisses me off.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

What do you do with inuit & maasai culture?

Very few human cultures we're strictly carnivore, but these were. Yet, there have been vegetarian societies and no proof of a vegan society ever existing (prior to now)


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

sandcastle35 said:


> oh _stop_. You know those are all delicacies, not the norm. Your only argument is "it tastes good". That says a lot.


 I'm probably missing the sarcasm, but I can't help myself. 

It tastes good. It smells good. People who go vegan/vegetarian still crave meat. Eating meat is common across most cultures. There are cultures that got most of their food from hunting/fishing. We have lots of archaeological evidence that humans have hunted and fished for a very long time. We have the ability to digest meat. We are evolved to be very good at throwing things (i.e. spears) compared to other animals. We survived in cold climates despite not having significant amounts of body hair (we got fur and pelt from hunting). Our nearest genetic cousins (chimpanzees) hunt for meat. The other hominids we evolved alongside (neanderthals for instance) also hunted for meat. 

Compare all of that with "you don't want to shove a raw unskinned rabbit in your mouth." 

If you want to be a vegetarian, more power to you. But "eating meat is unnatural and only happens because of culture" is obviously wrong.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Humans are omnivores. To claim we're herbivores or carnivores would be stupid on either side. The best possible diet is one that is VARIED and BALANCED and composed of whole foods, things that were previously alive whether rooted in the ground, picked from a tree, or on feet or fins.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

Look in the mirror and do a big toothy smile, see those pointed teeth next to your front incisors? 

Case closed.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

We feel love for our pets because they are our _honorary children_. But in some cuisines, dog meat is a delicacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

On a more fundamental level, to be against killing animals for meat, one has to oppose other animals doing it. And this means outlawing Nature itself. Farm animals die a humane death, far better than being rent by a lion in the jungle.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

DudeGuy said:


> _"Omnivorous"_



Oh yes I know dear. I have a science degree. I meant to type Western and carnivore because only Westerners are idiotic enough to actually claim that they are on a carnivore diet, or that paleo or low carb are super healthy. Furthermore, omnivore does not mean that people are meant to eat meat it simply means they have the ability to do so. 



DudeGuy said:


> I mean, the last time you sat on the lawn, did you have an urge to start eating the grass.


False comparison. Grass is an invasive species imported from aristocratic English gardens. Native tribal people in fact eat the plants in their vicinity in fact the Tongva tribe of Southern California had acorn paste as their staple food. 

Uhh


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

banane_wane said:


> As a vegetarian, I do in fact feel an instinctual desire to kill small animals.
> My empathy for them and desire not to harm them based on human morality is stronger however.


That's strange. I didn't want to even kill ants as a child. I have numerous vegetarian and vegan friends who are animal lovers, who do rescue or work in environmental science with children or animals, and even veg friends who try not to kill mice or insects if it can be avoided. 

An urge to hurt small animals is not something I usually even hear from the average meat eater. 

At any rate I'm glad you based your morality on rationality rather than emotions I guess. Whatever works. I like real world results however you get there.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Forest Nymph said:


> Animals do not possess morality as humans claim to, and they do not kill for pleasure only for hunger.


African hunter tribes also kill animals because of hunger. Do you want to impose your Western scientistic morality on them?



> The ethical issues surrounding the ridiculous things you implied in just saying if humans don't eat meat then other animals shouldn't, and that we might as well "outlaw nature" are better addressed by your doing research outside of the forum, starting with Googling the term "carnism" followed by a close reading of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Peter Singer isn't some hippie, he's the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, that is, the application of ethics without religion to the life sciences.


Professors are oversocialised preachers that want everyone to subscribe to their artificial worldview. Eating meat is part of my culture and I won't quit it because some maniac says it's immoral. A full breakfast without bacon? Oversocialised cuisine, I call it.



> Also the fact that you think farm animals die a more humane death than they do in the wild shows a childish naive ignorance about the reality of factory farms. It's also apparently never occurred to you that cattle and pigs are force bred for meat. That is, they are intentionally brought into the world by humans to suffer and die. A deer is much better off.


So will you be satisfied if I start eating deer meat?


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

JayDubs said:


> I read the article, as requested. Excerpts from the article you apparently keep posting:
> 
> Our guts are remarkably similar to those of *chimpanzees* and orangutans--gorillas are a bit special--which are, in turn, not so very different from those of most monkeys.
> 
> ...


How is that straw man treating you, and that old people large print font?

You're taking individual sentences out of a cohesive conceptual article, which actually supports me and my position. The author like me emphasized that omnivore means we can eat meat not that we should or that it's even good for us. He actually talks about that.

You on the other hand are posting like a Westboro Baptist, picking verses out of the Bible ...excuse me, science article, that suit you because debating the real issue is just too tough. 

I never said humans didn't eat meat or that they weren't omnivores. I said they are not carnivores. There is no evidence paleo or any meat heavy diet is our optimum diet, therefore we don't exhibit the behavior a carnivore would and will not be sick without meat.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

RoseTylerFan said:


> African hunter tribes also kill animals because of hunger. Do you want to impose your Western scientistic morality on them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me guess, you also think climate change is completely a lie or that it's caused by the sun and wobble, because you also know more than climatologists. 

I knew we'd get to mah culture eventually. How boring.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

DudeGuy said:


> There's an ice cream made with human milk that I'd very much like to try.


Well that's sounds rather kinky

Anyhow, i wonder did OP realized how many cattles, herds, poultries, fisheries, out there and how many billions of these animals are in existence. 

If let say we stop eating them definitely what would happen to the whole world? Remember, by animal right activists standards you aren't supposed to interfere in any way with these animals. 

I heard she is some sort of scientist, i would really like to hear her wisdom on this issue. Will she let the animals live and die massively on their own because there is no longer any human catered to their living needs? Or let them roam free in the neighborhood. Or move them en masse into siberia, maybe. Or?

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Forest Nymph said:


> Let me guess, you also think climate change is completely a lie or that it's caused by the sun and wobble, because you also know more than climatologists.
> 
> I knew we'd get to mah culture eventually. How boring.


Climate change is caused by industrial progress, which in turn is caused by your beloved science.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Kynx said:


> Let's just get this out of the way first, then hopefully we can drop it and discuss the topic.
> It's the forum rules. We also don't allow video's of sex or graphic nudity. A 13 year old is old enough to know about sex, it doesn't mean that they should see a pornographic video and we're being hypocrites for not allowing it.


There's a term for this, gosh it's late. Is it pedantry, when a person focuses on some small detail or social norms to avoid content. 

Sex and pornography are much different than showing a teenager a documentary of real life where their food comes from. Animal agriculture videos are more like sex ed than pornography. Activists don't do the exploitation, they expose the exploitation inherent in every day eating. 

It's so frustrating, it's like being outside of the Matrix trying to talk to people who believe it's real.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> You obviously didn't read this as it isn't making the claim you think it is. It's well written. A little tongue in cheek, maybe. The title alone can be a little misleading. The conclusion is: It's all very complicated, and there is no clear answer. So just eat whatever works. Or don't, if you prefer. After billions of dollars worth of research, the primary conclusion is that there's no easy fix (except for scurvy and rickets.)


I read the article. Sounds like you only read the last paragraph.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Forest Nymph said:


> There's a term for this, gosh it's late. Is it pedantry, when a person focuses on some small detail or social norms to avoid content.
> 
> Sex and pornography are much different than showing a teenager a documentary of real life where their food comes from. Animal agriculture videos are more like sex ed than pornography. Activists don't do the exploitation, they expose the exploitation inherent in every day eating.
> 
> It's so frustrating, it's like being outside of the Matrix trying to talk to people who believe it's real.


If you were to post video's of animals being slaughtered, I would have issued you an infraction for it. Do you understand?*It's the forum rules*. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant.


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

_"Have you seen your dog or cat eating meat and thought you'd like to take a bite?"_
Yes, I have, many times in fact, and even tasted their pet food when I was young and had no concept of omnivores, carnivores etc. Other friends of mine did the same as we had a fun talking about our noob culinary adventures. 

"Have you seen raw meat and wanted to taste it?"

Yes, and did so, especially from fresh meat from veal or beef kept in beer or wine or herbs to fish, from when I was young. 

However, the first time I ever went to a fish market and saw them alive and struggling I started crying, my parents told me, and I remember it too. The fact that they were slowly dying saddened me a lot, and a couple times I did not want to watch them being cut but instead put them in water and let them live.

Ever since I was little I was running after and catching lizards, bugs, snakes, frogs, fish, etc. to look at them and study them. 
The fish I was catching was close to our house and among the stones. I figured that they were hiding under stones so I was covering the entrance where I felt like there were fish with my hands. 
First I gathered and observed them. Then sometimes I ate (fried) them, sometimes I returned them to the river. 

Now my questions for you:

Do you eat ANY OF THE FOLLOWING in their RAW form? How about getting them without using TOOLS and without modifying the landscape? 

Soy beans, wheat, alfalfa, hay, rice, oats, rye, chickpeas, corn, lentils, potatoes, beet, broccoli, chestnuts, eggplants, nettles, roses, eucalyptus, bamboo, lotus, brussel sprouts, pumpkin, sesame, mushrooms, etc.? 

Do you know that people and you including will digest raw meat easier than the raw crops I have mentioned?

Have you ever seen what plant agriculture did in so many parts of the world? a) deforestation, b) loss of soil fertility, c) salinisation, d) pollution of underground water reserves with insecticides and pesticides? 
I recommend you look at all letters when learning about the following countries (I'm leaving USA out on purpose):

Italy
Sudan and Somalia
Syria and Libya
Nazca people
Attica region of Greece

Thus, how about you stop making it a childish issue/question of meat vs veggies, black vs white, apples vs carrots, and instead maturely discuss about PROPER MANAGEMENT when it comes to both the plant and the meat industries?

Don't you (plural; hardcore vegans that try to push it on others and pretend you're both historians and nutritionists) think that maybe, just maybe, there are abuses being committed in both sectors? Probably not, as little spoiled delusional capitalists.

I am not even vegan but I know I have more vegan knowledge than any of the hardcore fans and I'm open to writing a list here if anyone asks, since most curing and preserving methods of food have already been forgotten in the West anyways, as well as the useful herbs and medicinal plants, and if you're wondering, no, it wasn't because of meat farms that they were lost. People waste much more than other communities too; when cutting the animal one should use more than the meat: organs, skin, sometimes blood....

This talk is kinda excluding religions, like hinduism and jainism, yet I am open to understanding spiritual arguments about humankind evolving to a point to which we won't have to kill anything to live, but don't try to tell me how you can't digest meat when you clearly can, even better than you can digest uncooked roots and crops. 

If you told me humans were born Fructivores I would try to believe you more. 

Fruits are probably the only thing we can eat extensively without having to cook them (though it depends) and still consider delicious.


----------



## Gloria Germanica (Dec 27, 2018)

You know the Irish potato famine was caused by the carnivorous English gobbling up all Irish farmland for cattle farming? The resulting deaths weren't completely undeserved though.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Surreal Snake said:


> I tend to eat animals that are free range and pay more for this. We are all conditioned one way or another unfortunately. Personally I like meat. Fish and poultry too


chicken and pork are my personal faves


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

contradictionary said:


> Well that's sounds rather kinky
> 
> Anyhow, i wonder did OP realized how many cattles, herds, poultries, fisheries, out there and how many billions of these animals are in existence.
> 
> ...


thrown to the wolves


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Candy said:


> chicken and pork are my personal faves


I love chicken and pork. Also beef and fish.... Yum


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Forest Nymph said:


> How is that straw man treating you, and that old people large print font?
> 
> You're taking individual sentences out of a cohesive conceptual article, which actually supports me and my position. The author like me emphasized that omnivore means we can eat meat not that we should or that it's even good for us. He actually talks about that.
> 
> ...


Go back and read your opening post. You don't mention the word omnivore once. You make the argument that we're not carnivores, and then jump to the conclusion that eating meat is "cultural brain washing." How is it cultural brain washing if, as you now seem to say was your position all along, we're omnivores? 



Forest Nymph said:


> Most of you have been conditioned to see meat as food like a form of cultural brain washing since childhood, by hiding it inside nuggets, burgers and soups, and covering it in seasonings, spices, and sauces. In reality 99 percent of you as small children never would have chosen to take a bite out of your pet or even your neighbors farm animals instinctively. Though instinctively you craved your mother's milk and would naturally eat fruit raw and whole.


Further, we know from your post history that you don't condone people eating even a little bit of meat. You have a thread where you compare it as equivalent to child molestation. 

https://www.personalitycafe.com/cri...479-things-meat-elitists-dont-understand.html 

You are implicitly making a false dichotomy argument by ignoring what most humans do - eat both meat and plants. You say we're not carnivores, and then jump to the idea that we should be vegetarians. It's not a straw man to attack your logical fallacy directly.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Kynx said:


> If you were to post video's of animals being slaughtered, I would have issued you an infraction for it. Do you understand?*It's the forum rules*. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant.


Ok thank you. I appreciate your concern about the infraction. 

But it does not change my point in the slightest in fact it proves the hypocrisy is so mind boggling an entire forum thinks teens shouldn't even know where their fast food burger comes from. Then people ask me what's wrong with that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Forest Nymph said:


> Ok thank you. I appreciate your concern about the infraction.


Thank you for understanding


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

JayDubs said:


> Go back and read your opening post. You don't mention the word omnivore once. You make the argument that we're not carnivores, and then jump to the conclusion that eating meat is "cultural brain washing." How is it cultural brain washing if, as you now seem to say was your position all along, we're omnivores?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a concept. It's called carnism. It's been academically accepted for nearly fifteen years feel free to look it up and remember, people are rapists and murderers too. The fact that people do eat meat doesn't make it implicitly required. Because we are not carnivores. We didn't require meat to evolve. We don't require meat now. Technically we can also eat trans fats, high fructose corn syrup and moonshine. Some omnivores like pigs can eat literal trash. So you see it's not my logical fallacy. It's yours. You don't know what omnivore means or how it entails that we are capable of eating artificial flavors and refined sugar and even other humans. It doesn't make that required or even healthy. 

I think you need another article. A shorter easier to understand one so you won't be tempted to take lines out of context. 

Early humans evolved as vegetarians: www.inverse.com/amp/article/31625-human-evolution-meat-eating-vegan-africa-grassland-hunting


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

I just read the first 2 lines of the OP's post and I already facepalmed and come into conclusion that It's made by some angst vegan troll.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Gloria Germanica said:


> You know the Irish potato famine was caused by the carnivorous English gobbling up all Irish farmland for cattle farming? The resulting deaths weren't completely undeserved though.


Right now people in developing countries are doing without enough food because their grain and soy is being sold to Western factory farms for meat animals. Animal agriculture has been repeatedly linked to global hunger as well as being a close second to fossil fuels in causing climate change.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Space and Time said:


> I just read the first 2 lines of the OP's post and I already facepalmed and come into conclusion that It's made by some angst vegan troll.


I'm not a troll I'm challenging unconscious cultural paradigms which have become not only destructive to animals but now to humans on a global scale. 

I'm sure people felt similar when their schema about race and sex were challenged. We still see them doing it about gender. I don't know what it takes exactly, maybe Ni? Maybe a certain set of life experiences or a particular type of intelligence, to not feel immediately threatened by these things and actually be able to think them through like an adult.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

RoseTylerFan said:


> Climate change is caused by industrial progress, which in turn is caused by your beloved science.


Actually climate change is caused by an excess of C02 and methane trapping water vapor as well. Plus the acidification of the oceans is in fact caused by phosphates and nitrates. The two biggest culprits for these excesses are fossil fuels and animal agriculture. 

Science is a broad field united by a common interest in deductive methods leading to inductive applications. Then of course being flexible enough to change at will when new information arises. For example about race or gender or animal sentience or the effects of animal agriculture on climate change. It's a series of disproofs of hypotheses, which leads to peer reviewed theories which are much more solid than some people understand. What many average people call a theory is merely a hypothesis. A scientific theory is backed by numerous studies by different people. 

Science isn't wholly responsible for any particular thing though the ethics of a scientist or lack thereof can be an issue. Einstein remarked upon this many years ago. Those unethical scientists are the ones working closely with capitalist polluters out of greed.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Aarya said:


> _"Have you seen your dog or cat eating meat and thought you'd like to take a bite?"_
> Yes, I have, many times in fact, and even tasted their pet food when I was young and had no concept of omnivores, carnivores etc. Other friends of mine did the same as we had a fun talking about our noob culinary adventures.
> 
> "Have you seen raw meat and wanted to taste it?"
> ...


I already addressed the fallacy of the uncooked plants in an earlier post. Both fruits and vegetables even nuts can be eaten raw off the tree or the ground, I grew up with grandparents who grew their own vegetables and now live in an area where I can literally graze wild fruits and vegetables for snacks. There's no meat you can do that with anyway, animal flesh has to be prepared for consumption. Always. Only milk can be taken raw. It'd be the only animal product with the natural raw access that fruit, nuts and vegetables have. Cooked food in general is a good thing but stop pretending fruit and vegetables always have to be cooked or prepared in some way like flesh. False comparison. 

As for agriculture, you don't know diddly squat. Animal agriculture is far more destructive than vegetable agriculture this is a scientific fact. What a lot of people don't understand is that the world is currently covered in 40% agriculture due to meat consumption. In a vegan world it would take less than 5% and the subsequent water. Why? Because "meat animals" require pounds and pounds of vegetable agriculture, food that could be fed to hungry humans instead. 

Eating meat is inefficient. It's not especially high in any vitamin or mineral except iron. Don't say B12 because the largest waste of B12 in the world is farmed animals, supplements in bulk put in their feed. That B12 comes from cobalt mining and could be fed directly to humans as well. Meat uses extraordinary amounts of land and water that make people's complaints about almonds laughable in comparison. 

I'm going to do a whole thread on environment and agriculture. It's my area of research when I start grad school. I've been encouraged by the department to do a project on plant based diet for environmental reasons.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Forest Nymph said:


> There's a concept. It's called carnism. It's been academically accepted for nearly fifteen years feel free to look it up and remember, people are rapists and murderers too.


It's a buzzword that some vegan activist made up to try to sway people. That's why no one uses it. The lady who invented the word (Melanie Joy) does anti-meat activism as her full time job. 



Forest Nymph said:


> We didn't require meat to evolve. We don't require meat now.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


To quote from the article you linked: 

Certainly at later points in human evolution meat eating became a bigger part of life, and this very well may have contributed significantly to the animals that we have become.
________________________________________




Forest Nymph said:


> You don't know what omnivore means or how it entails that we are capable of eating artificial flavors and refined sugar and even other humans. It doesn't make that required or even healthy.


Merriam-Webster defines an omnivore as "one who is omnivorous." Merriam-Webster defines omnivorous as "feeding on both animal and plant substances." Wikipedia defines omnivore as "an animal whose species gets its energy and nutrients from a diet made up of foods that include plants, animals, algae, fungi, and bacteria. Google says an omnivore is "an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin." 

Notice how every single one includes eating animals? 



Forest Nymph said:


> Most of you have been conditioned to see meat as food like a form of cultural brain washing since childhood, by hiding it inside nuggets, burgers and soups, and covering it in seasonings, spices, and sauces.


So now that we've both agreed that humans are omnivores. And I've provided several common definitions from different sources about what it means to be an omnivore. Are you ready to admit that it's natural for humans to eat animals, rather than "a form of cultural brain washing since childhood?" 

I'm not even asking you to say it's morally right or okay (since I'm not going to engage in the naturalistic fallacy). Just that humans are omnivores, and it's natural for omnivores to eat meat. Can you admit that?


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Forest Nymph said:


> I'm going to do a whole thread on environment and agriculture. It's my area of research when I start grad school. I've been encouraged by the department to do a project on plant based diet for environmental reasons.


Have you spent the last however many years of your life getting an activism degree? Surrounded by a whole bunch of people in academia, who have similar opinions? Because that would explain a lot.


----------



## In2itive (Mar 4, 2012)

Gloria Germanica said:


> You know the Irish potato famine was caused by the carnivorous English gobbling up all Irish farmland for cattle farming? The resulting deaths weren't completely undeserved though.


The potato famine was caused by a potato blight. There were other contributing factors involved due to the colonization of Ireland at the time. No, the deaths weren't deserved, and that's an absurd claim.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

JayDubs said:


> It's a buzzword that some vegan activist made up to try to sway people. That's why no one uses it. The lady who invented the word (Melanie Joy) does anti-meat activism as her full time job.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh dear god I don't care about Miriam Webster, I have both an Associates and Bachelors in hard sciences. I care about what biology professors say it is. And now I know FOR CERTAIN that you didn't actually read the first article but scanned it for confirmation bias. In the first longer article the scientist explained in much more detail than myself that evolution is a messy process and that we are not designed to eat anything in particular, he guides the reader to his point by first clarifying that omnivore doesn't mean "made to eat meat and vegetables." He then goes on to explain the difference between our digestive system and a carnivore digestive system. 

Look, humans have a evolutionary history of rape, murder, and even more horrible fates than death that clearly served them at some point in the short term. Our closest relatives still engage in those behaviors. But as time went on people realized rape, murder, and owning slaves was a terrible thing to do for long term social success. Meat eating is similar. It served us in the short term under certain circumstances, and we retain the ability to do so, but we have no more need to eat meat under every day circumstances than we do to kill our neighbors though such acts of violence might be warranted in an emergency. 

It's hilarious to me how defensive people get about meat. Almost like they know they're doing something wrong. Responding with selective reasoning, confirmation bias and even childish trolling instead of considering the possibility that in the 21st century farming cattle for beef is as outdated as capturing and enslaving people from other tribes.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

JayDubs said:


> Have you spent the last however many years of your life getting an activism degree? Surrounded by a whole bunch of people in academia, who have similar opinions? Because that would explain a lot.


No. My background is in the hard sciences. In places where people are fully literate and taught evolution like California, the impact of animal agriculture on climate change is taught in schools now. Unfortunately there's a whole sea of the great unwashed in this country to set straight. Due to being an SFP rather than an NTJ I decided my skills and knowledge were better put to use for outreach in the real world than continuing to remain isolated in a lab or field. Climatologists bemoan their precarious position of knowing the truth but being frowned upon for sharing that truth and applying it to public policy. That's where people like me come in. 

Dr. Melanie Joy has a PhD in Social Psychology not activism. I'm fairly certain very few people in this thread have a PhD in anything nor even an Associates in Natural Sciences.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Forest Nymph said:


> In places where people are fully literate and taught evolution like California, the impact of animal agriculture on climate change is taught in schools now. Unfortunately there's a whole sea of the great unwashed in this country to set straight.


Oh yes, great enlightened one. Speak down to us from your ivory tower and tell us how much better you are than the poor common people. 

I'm sure that attitude will carry you far. 

I'm out. Good luck on your career convincing people eating meat is equivalent to touching kids.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Give them meat, or give them death!


----------



## In2itive (Mar 4, 2012)

My educational background is in geographic information systems, meteorology, and geography. Add in some geology as well. I'm very well familiar with all of this. However, I disagree with your implication that we shouldn't be eating meat from an evolutionary standpoint. Making the claim that most of our ancestors were vegetarian is misleading. Our ancestors started eating meat around two to three million years ago. Regarding agriculture, it is the practices that are used that are the issue. The ag industry is fully aware of all this as well and there are a handful of smaller family farmers who are making an effort to change not only due to the environmental benefits, but they also don't have to apply as many chemical fertilizers to the soil if they allow the soil to retain carbon. Corporate agriculture is going to be very slow to change unless they see a direct monetary benefit. At this time it appears that they are headed toward the use of precision agriculture, which certainly reduced the amount of chemicals used, but isn't really effective at sequestering carbon.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

JayDubs said:


> Oh yes, great enlightened one. Speak down to us from your ivory tower and tell us how much better you are than the poor common people.
> 
> I'm sure that attitude will carry you far.
> 
> I'm out. Good luck on your career convincing people eating meat is equivalent to touching kids.


I grew up in a working class family with men who served in the military and grandparents who grew dozens of various types of vegetables and fruits,making their own jelly. I worked and took out loans to go to college. The greatest thing instilled in me by my grandfather was the importance of literacy and education. He bought me a microscope and a computer and made sure I was exposed to the news and adult non fiction and politics. I was raised to flee and transcend the cesspool of ignorant Trump supporters in the South. I came to California by choice. 

Ignorance isn't something to be proud of, mister. In my grad research I'll actually do a real world project to implement accessibility to plant based diets and educate about climate change. I'll teach or design materials rather than writing a thesis. No ivory tower for me but yes I've spent years of my life since high school loathing people who are willfully ignorant for self serving reasons. I don't have to like people to want to save humanity.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

In2itive said:


> My educational background is in geographic information systems, meteorology, and geography. Add in some geology as well. I'm very well familiar with all of this. However, I disagree with your implication that we shouldn't be eating meat from an evolutionary standpoint. Making the claim that most of our ancestors were vegetarian is misleading. Our ancestors started eating meat around two to three million years ago. Regarding agriculture, it is the practices that are used that are the issue. The ag industry is fully aware of all this as well and there are a handful of smaller family farmers who are making an effort to change not only due to the environmental benefits, but they also don't have to apply as many chemical fertilizers to the soil if they allow the soil to retain carbon. Corporate agriculture is going to be very slow to change unless they see a direct monetary benefit. At this time it appears that they are headed toward the use of precision agriculture, which certainly reduced the amount of chemicals used, but isn't really effective at sequestering carbon.


This is incorrect what you're saying is wrong. In some ways grassfed cows are worse for the environment because they require more land. Humane agriculture is not the answer. I have multiple studies I'm starting to base my grad research on which clearly state lacto vegetarian and vegan diets are the most sustainable based on global estimates, including aspects like buying local.


----------



## In2itive (Mar 4, 2012)

Forest Nymph said:


> This is incorrect what you're saying is wrong. In some ways grassfed cows are worse for the environment because they require more land. Humane agriculture is not the answer. I have multiple studies I'm starting to base my grad research on which clearly state lacto vegetarian and vegan diets are the most sustainable based on global estimates, including aspects like buying local.


First of all you are calling me wrong when I didn't even come close to mentioning anything to do with feeding livestock. Furthermore, you have done a lot of dismissing other people's comments here. Presumably, because you are in grad school and feel everyone else is beneath you. Acquiring a PhD doesn't make you smarter. It means someone went through the paces to get a PhD. Some people learn something. Some don't. If you don't believe me, just look at any real university and you will find at least one professor on campus, but often several dozen, who are not only way out there, but are patently full of crap. So, if you want to have a conversation with us, by all means do so. But dismissing every point others make isn't the way to do it. That's something that aligns more with the Dunning-Kruger effect than it does with someone who is educated and open-minded.

Note, I'm not trying to pick on you. It just really appears that you are placing yourself on a pedestal. The comment about the number of people who have a PhD is kind of a giveaway. Like I said, having a PhD doesn't mean you are smart. I find more people with PhDs to be arrogant rather than smart because they think they are smarter than they are, but I have met quite a few who are smart.

Back to my previous post, my point was that agriculture practices contribute to atmospheric carbon content through a variety of means. That could be uprooting carbon (roots) due to overturning the soil, draining wetlands that allow peat to decompose, planting of annual grasses for feed, and so on. There is also quite a bit of information on sequestering carbon in rangelands (where cattle graze) by changing management practices such as allowing perennials with deep roots to replace the weedy invasive annuals that have been spread all over the world. The bottom line is that most agricultural process don't add carbon to the soil, and remove carbon through tilling. This applies to raising livestock and vegetables. The good news is there are plenty of people who are aware of it and they are working on ways to continue agriculture while sequestering carbon. If you are interested in this beyond trying to convince people they aren't supposed to eat meat, the Australian government has had several ongoing programs to sequester carbon in rangelands. I also suggest taking a look at some of the data from UC Davis, and there is even a some information out of CSU, Fresno on these topics. But do look at UC Davis. They have more information on just about any topic related to agriculture than you will ever be able to read, and if you have any questions you can send an email and you are likely to find someone so passionate about a topic that they will overwhelm you.

At any rate, you aren't going to convince people to eat less meat. People are going to eat what they want even if it kills them. For example, I think it is fairly well know that a diet of bleached flour and french fries is really bad. However, millions of people eat exactly that every day for lunch.


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

Forest Nymph said:


> Aarya said:
> 
> 
> > _"
> ...


_

Sweetie, no offence but I'm not the type to be impressed by the diplomas and shiny trophees on your desk. A true researcher asks questions and does not avoid them like you just did. 

If you think that by telling me you're "researching" this topic I will automatically give you any credit, then learn from me there are, have been, and will be thousands of researchers and scientists who will get it wrong until someone gets it right. Please link the comparison you did between chemicals runoffs from plant vs animal farm in a specific region or more, or at a country level, and then we can talk.

I asked you a question which you entirely avoided. Answer me if you can eat and digest the aformentioned list.

There is meat you can digest raw.
And there are vegetable and fruits you can digest raw. 

There are meats you shouldn't try to digest raw.
And there are vegetables you shouldn't try to digest raw. 

Can you give me examples of meat humans like to consume raw and explain what makes it fit for consumption without causing health complications? Do you know them, have you ever tried them?

You are mistaken about milk: it's a product you have to boil. 
People die due to unpasteurised milk (and hygienic conditions that are not easy to achieve to consume milk raw).

Researching to see if vegetarianism is more economically viable - maybe you should stick to that rather that nutritionism. No worries, we all passionately think about things until we realise they are someone else's opinion. 

I love how meat consumption is getting compared to human slavery. Truly so accurate. 

How would you advise sportsmen and people in the military to supplement their diets with plants only? Can they do it without powders and vitamin supplements? Maybe you should research that too.

Props on you for trying otherwise, but these... obsessed american vegans let's call them although they come from more branches, have the attitudes of specialists and scientists before you even get to know half of what you're talking about, like a race to looking "intelligent" or superior and academic before mental maturity. 

"My grandpa taught me" that is a cute argument and it is nice for you, but maybe we should be talking with your grandpa instead, since you seem too dead sold on the idea of veganism to be presenting much facts or numbers. Where are they, I would genuinely like to read them. 

You/we should be curious about the subject and in debate mode, not in "OMG MEAT EATING CONSPIRACY THE GREYS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING US IT S THE MEAT INDUSTRY Y'ALL INFERIOR FOR LETTING YOURSELVES BRAINWASHED".

Do you understand the difference? You don't put research questions like that unless you have serious grounds for it. 

I don't know what Conspiracy Lala Land you're living in the US (don't get me wrong, many "conspiracy" theories were true or are based on true facts, many indeed) but not everyone is eating meat in form of "burgers and bbq steaks in sauces."

Fresh, rare and grilled/woked/slightly covered with just some salt: best kind of meat someone could give me 😉. Along with boiled, or in thick soups, especially broths.

Best I've had was boar heart.

If your whole argument is based on the meat industry, how about game meat and local production? Why do you mention nothing about them? Are you researching only the big cow/pig/chicken meat industry?

You have to learn, then, to properly categorise your research topics.
You jump from one emotional topic, which is fine, to confusing it with how economy works, which is not fine. I'm not saying it doesn't work like that in the USA, but I find it weird how you think if it's USA's problem and code of practice, then it's a globalised problem and code of practice.

Do you understand the problem? It might not even be the whole USA, it might be a handful of States only. If you're telling me you did not localise your study, I'll tell you I already know you probably don't have any published studies on more reputable sites like ScienceDirect or ResearchGate.
These researches have already been done and many of them aren't even disclosed or available easily because they would "hurt" the industries too much. Much better and easier to keep on advancing to a cliff edge as the human race and playing with the weather than trying to correct out human flaws, since everyone is being educated to look for instant profit, aren't they? 

Shouldn't you address the mentality of thinking about instant profit rather than long-term gains and future generations, since this tendency and type of education reinforced will simply be transferred to a theoretical plant-only industry? Instant results, instant gratification, instant everything. Societal standards that only acknowledge and deify you if you have million dollar mansions? You think any of this will cease and is fuelled by meat consumption only? 

In which category do you put apiculture and insect eating?

Did you compare phosphates etc from insecticides pesticides fertilisers runoffs from plant agriculture vs from meat industry? I'd like if so to see some figures, would be interesting (by country or less, zonal)

Do vegans support horse-riding centers and the racing industry? Don't get me wrong, but I think one shouldn't be sitting on their backs pulling on their mouths/gums and whipping them for their pleasure either, according to the same vegan principles. 

Much less see them being forcefully bred for non-consumption reasons.

What about the flourishing exotic pet trade? Project Dakota Flyer? You reckon not eating meat will cease all these? The fur farms... tiger farms, crocodile farms, venom extracting farms?

I wish that was true 🙂 If it was, I'd also avoid eating meat. 

Some people such as myself see different priorities, and that's probably due to geographical and dietary differences, which you should compare and talk about. Here's a research topic for ya "To what extent the meat industry can be prioritised as the number one polluter in US, compared to other practices?"

To establish: 
*Will it be all the 50 states? 

Could it in fact not impact the states directly as much, but also or more the countries they are importing from/exporting to? 

Where is the origin of the food of the animals, what/who are the primary consumers/target states?

What does "meat industry" mean, what animals will you or have been incorporated into the calculations? Was or will you leave pisciculture out?

What other practices from other sectors "pollute" more than the "meat industry"? 
Will you focus on one specific type of pollutant?*

It's funny because the answer to some of these questions is already known. 

Everyone knows USA is overdoing it with cattle and lack of pasture space, having had to kill most wildlife for their grazing animals. Yes, that is a well known fact, the way herdsmen poisoned and killed wild animals to protect their grazing animals, and how they are still doing it in other parts of the world, a truly saddening practice. In my opinion it is because people lacked any kind of respect or spirituality towards the animals, and see them as inferior or stupid, unable to think or sense pain. The settlers massacred the amerindians and saw them as inferior partly for their animistic/totemic practices, yet they would have had very important sustainable lessons to teach. There are cultures and people who survived for thousands of years with wolves, bear and lynx at their doorsteps and used shepherd dogs to guard their livestock, and learned to see incidents as "this is nature" and did not kill the wildlife in those areas but instead accepted them.
I believe it comes down to education or lack thereof, not to meat eating, and that the two could have been combined. We also have this belief that the nomad invaders (which consequently happened to live on more meat products that agricultural societies) were morally and culturally inferior to ours because they had war-like practices and rituals, and were eating a "lot of meat and blood". That is a very old belief, but let me tell you, it is not dictated by meat. Read about buddhism and how they tried to "educate" the Mongols. Again, it is not the first time vegetarianism is believed to be superior. 

Veganism in the West/USA (and not everywhere) is a modern-day version of "cult", that combines certain more sustainable principles, which by the way were initially nationally expressed by Jainists more than 2000 years ago. 

What you don't understand is meat consumption is a RESULT of geographical climates and does not generate "wild" behaviors by itself, although the monks living with tigers form Thailand believe that by boiling the meat they give to cats and not letting them taste blood thwarts their killing instinct. 

But are we animals? Truly can you not respect and love animals and wildlife but still eat meat, as a human being? Does that really make you inferior? 

That is not something that every country/state did to the same degree, destroying landscape for pastures, and the degree to which each did it would be more interesting to talk about.

Tell me what are the primary reasons for the acute natural habitat FRAGMENTATION and killing of wild species. It's too late to think that meat eating is the only one generating global environmental issues. Action needs to be done on multiple fronts, and the priority is reducing pollution in coastal zones, stopping mass deforestation in USA, Europe (especially South-Eastern Europe), Africa, South America, etc. 

In 40 years you might find out that Fracking did more damage to the underground water reserves more than animal agriculture did in 2000 years. 

I also wish our existence on Earth was limited to not having to kill anything and just picking fruits. Everyone wishes that, Forest Nymph. The question is, is it possible? 

*I'm going to be the most progressive of the bunch and advocate for photosynthesis. The only true violence-free future of the human kind: when we won't have to kill plants either! maybe we can even sort of become like corals, let photosynthetic cellule grow on our skin and provide us food*

More plant species have disappeared due to us than animals, you know?

Don't eat the plants; make them your friends.









But not even we know what our deep instincts are about, really, do we? How do you know that hunting wasn't in fact very healthy for humans and made them more physically fit and stronger, more adaptable? 

I have a strong feeling that certain people will still feel the need to eat meat, and even to hunt or kill, because it exists within us, or in some of us, without a doubt. You can always chose to procreate with another vegan and reduce the number of cultural meat-eaters. Both the urge to not kill and the urge to "play with" something until you more or less mistakenly kill it are in fact very human things. People wanted to get to the top of the food chain and chose the most practical way of doing so.

Now you also deeply desire to be not only on top of the food chain but among the tops of your community. You don't want to be hunted. You also want to retain your current physique but switch to plants, without having your limbs or teeth revert (or maybe evolve, but since you say we were born herbivores, then revert is the word) to those of herbivore I assume, is it not? Do you believe in evolution or not? We are not currently adapted to vegetarian-only diets. It is not simple to have such a lifestyle, it is much more simple to be opportunistic, no bullshit in the world can deny that. 

Well let me tell you how it works on Terra in this dimension: you can't have both without sacrificing from both, and slowly build on the "deeds of our ancestors". Without having to kill our fellow brothers and sisters if they refuse our "moral superiority", of course._


----------



## banane_wane (May 13, 2017)

Forest Nymph said:


> That's strange. I didn't want to even kill ants as a child. I have numerous vegetarian and vegan friends who are animal lovers, who do rescue or work in environmental science with children or animals, and even veg friends who try not to kill mice or insects if it can be avoided.
> 
> An urge to hurt small animals is not something I usually even hear from the average meat eater.
> 
> At any rate I'm glad you based your morality on rationality rather than emotions I guess. Whatever works. I like real world results however you get there.


I dunno I liked stalking birds and trying to catch them; I'd find moths in the grass and chase them down and kill them. I used to chase cows and sheep around because I got a kick out of essentially dominating them. I was proud to be the apex predator.
Then I read scientific articles discussing the emotional range of animals; their brain structures, their behaviors, their neurotransmitters. I had previously believed them to be stupid and wholly beneath me. But I realized that they were actually capable of experiencing a lot of the same emotions humans do. And they remembered their pain. The only thing that separates us from them is their inability to think.
I realized that every time I ate meat I was actually helping to cause suffering. Of course I still value my own life over the life of any animal, but I'm not in a situation where my survival or even my health depend upon the death of another animal. So, I don't eat meat.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

Forest Nymph said:


> No. My background is in the hard sciences. In places where people are fully literate and taught evolution like California, the impact of animal agriculture on climate change is taught in schools now. *Unfortunately there's a whole sea of the great unwashed in this country to set straight.*


My bold. 

Always the same old story - this is what drove me to the political centre. Take any compassionate, reasoned and virtuous activist and scratch just a little and they expose themselves.

I remember you once lecturing me on the importance of the real education you allegedly possessed and I was considered to lack, all while exposing the fact that you didn't know what Socialism was - by confusing it with Social Democracy. If that dented my ability to consider you credible, the above quote demolishes that ability.

And thus, there is no benefit to anyone really debating this matter with you until you've done some serious reflecting. Despite levelling claims of intellectual dishonesty at others - you are exposed. You know best - but that simply isn't enough for you, like any activist you care not if people are free to live the way thats right for them, you care only that they act and believe as you deem correct. You've moved the goalposts throughout this thread whenever a successful critique of your posting has been made, you both advocate for and disdain science as is convenient and you've revealed a belief in your own moral and intellectual superiority - such a person is never here to discuss or debate.. they are here to preach and dismiss. I dont believe thats what most of us signed up for.

Despite the above, I wish you well and hope you'll reflect a little on a post which was uncomfortable to construct.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Why do some people care so much who eats what? If someone wants to eat beef, let them eat beef. If someone wants to eat tomatoes, let them eat tomatoes. Personally, I like the taste of meat and I feel hungry if I don't eat any meat.

I don't see what morality has to do with food. People have always eaten meat. It's not even a "Western" thing. I don't think there has ever been a civilisation who did not eat meat. I think this is another case of (some) people politicising everything. We live in an age of nagging, nitpicking and hypocritical moralistic preaching. I can't even open the TV and watch a show without someone shoving their political beliefs in my eyes and judging others why they don't live their lives exactly according to those precepts. Everything is "-ist" for them! Apparently, some people believe the entire planet should think the same way they do. It's like they and they alone are the ultimate sources of morality and the supreme judges of good and evil. Like the universe revolves around them. And who are they to judge others? What have they achieved? What great brilliant thinkers are they that everyone should do what they say?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

BenjiMac said:


> Look in the mirror and do a big toothy smile, see those pointed teeth next to your front incisors?
> 
> Case closed.


And what if some don't have any?


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Soy products make creatures docile. Thus when the government or any authority starts pushing for soy/meatless products. I'm out.

We're jumping ahead here with our virtue signaling. We need to cleanse/straighten ourselves morally _towards eachother_ *first *for anything to truly change.


----------

