Is dietary orientation and/or classification; e.g. vegetarian and omnivore, a nature or a choice?

[Nous]

@Nous

Your link doesn't work.

Yeah, I don't even see the URL or the comment I made. Try again: Mortality in vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians in the United Kingdom

I commented that the study's failure to separate vegans from animal-product-consuming vegetarians was not the only problem with that study, and that the authors noted a couple of the limitations of their methodology.

 

[allfoak]

Yeah, I don't even see the URL or the comment I made. Try again: Mortality in vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians in the United Kingdom

I commented that the study's failure to separate vegans from animal-product-consuming vegetarians was not the only problem with that study, and that the authors noted a couple of the limitations of their methodology.

I think there is enough information to show that diet is important to health and a long life.

 

[Nous]

Correct.

So, you can't substantiate any claim that longevity or mortality rate has nothing to do with diet.

Does the claim that you made about "the limitation" have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

I don't know whether to point out that you've completely changed the use of "possability" here; or that no one has argued that mortality has nothing to do with diet.

So I guess I appreciate your (loigically invalid) statement; but as it's not related to the conversation: it's uninteresting.

I haven't changed the meaning of any word, and I have not made any "logically invalid" statement.

I will repeat: If it were true that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet, then there would not exist the possibility that "a lifestyle patter that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity".

Canines come to mind.

Why do "canines" come to your mind? Humans are not canines; humans are hominids.

The Burden of Proof

If you believe that there is anything erroneous in either of these sentences, then prove it: Anyone who can use logic can easily deduce a negative proposition. The rule of inference known as modus tollens, for instance, does just that. If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Humans are adapted to digest meat.

So can cows. That's how they got "mad cow" disease.

It seems that even at this late date, you still haven't caught on to the fact that the ability to swallow and extract calories from animal flesh does not define an animal as being biologically adapted as a meat-eater.

No. It distinguishes things *adapted* to be carnivores, omnivores, etc.

Obviously false.

In particular: when we see traits tailored to one or another (canines for meat)

Having canine teeth does not define an animal as meat-eater. Gorilla's canine teeth are much bigger than yours.

What establishes what something *is* is its behavior. Vegans are herbivores.

So you're saying that the terms "carnivore," "omnivore" and "herbivore" does not refer to biological traits but to behavior. Thus, the assertion, "Humans are omnivores," is not true, since a bunch of us do not engage in that behavior of eating other animals.

cats eat grass occasionally, but not for the purpose of a significant caloric intake; so are considered carnivorous.

As pointed out numerous times on this thread already, millions of domestic cats have lived their entire lives on Meow Mix, which is primarily grain. These cats have gotten most of their calories from grains.

Similarly: we see a lack of adaptation (grinding teeth, for example) to a herbivorous diet)

Say what? Humans lack what kind of teeth that herbivores have?

 

[Nous]

I think there is enough information to show that diet is important to health and a long life.

I do, too.

 

[allfoak]

Hot dogs are considered one of the most American foods.

However, a report uncovered some startling findings on what people are really eating when they bite into a frankfurter.

Clear Food analyzed 345 hot dogs and sausages from 75 different brands sold at 10 retailers and found that 14% had hygienic or substitution issues, according to the report.

Report: Human DNA found in hot dogs

 

[JerryL]

So, you can't substantiate any claim that longevity or mortality rate has nothing to do with diet.

Depending on one's definition of "mortality" (for some it's 100%, regardless of diet), that would be true. Nor have I made any.

Does the claim that you made about "the limitation" have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

No. It was a direct response to your claim "at most", which also had nothing to do with the topic of this thread (yet you chose to make it)

I haven't changed the meaning of any word, and I have not made any "logically invalid" statement.

"Proof by assertion" would be another logical fallacy.

I will repeat: If it were true that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet, then there would not exist the possibility that "a lifestyle patter that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity".

You've completely changed the use of "possability" here; and no one has argued that mortality has nothing to do with diet.

Why do "canines" come to your mind? Humans are not canines; humans are hominids.

https://sunningdaledentalblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/cus-too.jpg

If you believe that there is anything erroneous in either of these sentences, then prove it: Anyone who can use logic can easily deduce a negative proposition. The rule of inference known as modus tollens, for instance, does just that. If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

So can cows. That's how they got "mad cow" disease.

And cows are capable of an omnivorous diet. You've already conceded that they fit the definition. In fact, you complained about it.

On a side note: Humans do not get calories from dietary fiber. We are unable to digest it. This is different from most herbivores, which can.

It seems that even at this late date, you still haven't caught on to the fact that the ability to swallow and extract calories from animal flesh does not define an animal as being biologically adapted as a meat-eater.

It seems that even at this late date, you still haven't caught on to the fact that it does

Obviously false.

Your claim is obviously false.

Having canine teeth does not define an animal as meat-eater.

No. Eating meat defines an animal as a meat eater. Having canine teeth shows than an animal has an adaptation to eating meat.

Gorilla's canine teeth are much bigger than yours.

According to the Jane Goodall Institute, monkey and antelope DNA has been found in gorilla feces, suggesting they at least occasionally snack on meat aside from the insects others have mentioned.

So you're saying that the terms "carnivore," "omnivore" and "herbivore" does not refer to biological traits but to behavior.

It would depend on context.

Thus, the assertion, "Humans are omnivores," is not true, since a bunch of us do not engage in that behavior of eating other animals.

You are adding in a false presumption that "if some members of a group do not do something then the group does not."

It would be like saying "since ostriches don't fly, birds don't fly".

As pointed out numerous times on this thread already, millions of domestic cats have lived their entire lives on Meow Mix, which is primarily grain. These cats have gotten most of their calories from grains.

Which fits just fine with what I said; and disagrees completely with your position.

Say what? Humans lack what kind of teeth that herbivores have?

No. Cats lack grinding teeth. Try to keep up.