Meat eating fascists attack vegan cafe

[Walter Russell]

Being responsible for the killing of and then eating an innocent animal is a form of fanaticism IMHO

We're omnivores not herbivores so I see no issue with the food choices ppl make.

I highly respect the way in which native americans killed and processed all aspects of an animal they ate and I detest the slaughter comitted by western migrants for fur trade.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it but thats ok.

And for the record, if I were out in the woods and got eaten by a bear should my family be upset that he didn't eat berries and honey cones instead?
Nah, he'd just be doing what omnivores do.

 

[Lyndon]

We're not Omnivores, we don't have the teeth for it, we're herbivores that invented a way to cook meat so we could eat it with herbivore teeth.

 

[Wu Wei]

You may want to talk to Anatomist, Doctor, Dentist, or Biologist about that.....We also do not have the same teeth as herbivores....this is why we are omnivorous...

 

[Lyndon]

We have basically the same teeth as Monkeys, Chimps and Apes, and they are 99% herbivore.

 

[Wu Wei]

We have basically the same teeth as Monkeys, Chimps and Apes, and they are 99% herbivore.

really, and where exactly do you get this 99% for; monkeys, Chimpanzees and Gorillas

Now to the "We have basically the same teeth as Monkeys, Chimps and Apes" bit

Chimpanzee

Apes

Monkey

Humans

We seem to be missing the rather sizeable canines...like those found in many carnivores. But then we do not have the teeth of a herbivore or its digestive system either.

I think we need to go by the definition of Omnivore here which is "an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin"

And even if in primates it is 99%, and I doubt that percentage, that still leaves 1% which is not plant based, therefore they to are omnivores.

Also, simply from a physiological view, it is fat, much of that from non-plant protein, that is responsible for the development of out CNS (Central Nervous System) and like the reason we ended up with bigger brains. .

 

[Nietzsche]

We're not Omnivores, we don't have the teeth for it, we're herbivores that invented a way to cook meat so we could eat it with herbivore teeth.

I'll never understand this line of thought. Nothing in nature is 100% one way or the other. There are carnivores who'll eat vegetation, and nigh-every herbivore will eat an animal smaller than it is if it has the chance.

 

[Lyndon]

really, and where exactly do you get this 99% for; monkeys, Chimpanzees and Gorillas

Now to the "We have basically the same teeth as Monkeys, Chimps and Apes" bit

Chimpanzee

Apes

Monkey

Humans

We seem to be missing the rather sizeable canines...like those found in many carnivores. But then we do not have the teeth of a herbivore or its digestive system either.

I think we need to go by the definition of Omnivore here which is "an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin"

And even if in primates it is 99%, and I doubt that percentage, that still leaves 1% which is not plant based, therefore they to are omnivores.

Also, simply from a physiological view, it is fat, much of that from non-plant protein, that is responsible for the development of out CNS (Central Nervous System) and like the reason we ended up with bigger brains. .

So your argument is that because their teeth look more carnivourous than ours, and they are vegetarian, we should eat meat, yeah great logic!!

 

[Wu Wei]

So your argument is that because their teeth look more carnivourous than ours, and they are vegetarian, we should eat meat, yeah great logic!!

No, that is not what I said at all, but it is what you said based on similarities between human teeth and other primates so the logic you are saying I am using, although I am not, is the same exact logic you used in your previous statement. Basically I am saying you cannot use that as a defense. Also I asked where you got your 99% figure from, so where did that come from?

 

[Lyndon]

Primates hardly ever eat meat, for ages anthropologist thought they were complete vegetarians because THEY HAD NEVER SEEN THEM EAT MEAT. Now they think once in while they do, but they are primarily vegetarian and their teeth are not more herbivorous than ours, so go figure. Humans were not omnivores until they invented fire and learned how to cook meat.

 

[Acim]

Humans were not omnivores until they invented fire and learned how to cook meat.

So, since yesterday?

 

[Nous]

I think we need to go by the definition of Omnivore here which is "an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin"

So that would mean that the millions of domestic cats that have been raised on Meow Mix and other such products whose primary ingredient is corn or soybean meal are not carnivores but omnivores.

And it would mean that all the gorillas in zoos in the past who were fed meat (which was common in the past) were omnivores, not foliovores like their first-degree relatives in the wild.

And I guess it would mean that all human vegans are not omnivores but herbivores.

Also, simply from a physiological view, it is fat, much of that from non-plant protein, that is responsible for the development of out CNS (Central Nervous System) and like the reason we ended up with bigger brains. .

I assume you cannot provide any evidence by which to conclude that consumption of animal fat "is responsible for the development of [our] CNS," or by which to conclude that consumption of animal fat is "the reason we ended up with bigger brains."

 

[Nous]

We're not Omnivores, we don't have the teeth for it, we're herbivores that invented a way to cook meat so we could eat it with herbivore teeth.

I'll never understand this line of thought. Nothing in nature is 100% one way or the other.

Obviously Lyndon did not make up the words "omnivore" or "herbivore". Why do you think that someone(s) formulated words such as omnivore, carnivore, herbivore, granivore, sanguivore?

There are carnivores who'll eat vegetation, and nigh-every herbivore will eat an animal smaller than it is if it has the chance.

So you've seen elephants chowing down on lions (which elephants are known to kill on occasion)?

 

[Nietzsche]

Obviously Lyndon did not make up the words "omnivore" or "herbivore". Why do you think that someone(s) formulated words such as omnivore, carnivore, herbivore, granivore, sanguivore?

So you've seen elephants chowing down on lions (which elephants are known to kill on occasion)?

No, but I've seen deer eat rabbits.

 

[Wu Wei]

So that would mean that the millions of domestic cats that have been raised on Meow Mix and other such products whose primary ingredient is corn or soybean meal are not carnivores but omnivores.

And it would mean that all the gorillas in zoos in the past who were fed meat (which was common in the past) were omnivores, not foliovores like their first-degree relatives in the wild.

And I guess it would mean that all human vegans are not omnivores but herbivores.


I assume you cannot provide any evidence by which to conclude that consumption of animal fat "is responsible for the development of [our] CNS," or by which to conclude that consumption of animal fat is "the reason we ended up with bigger brains."

First that means we are feeding cats improperly, they would not seek out those things on their own. In that case it would be forced not natural. Cats eat plants naturally, but not for dietary needs as much as purging their systems.

As for the other...first show me where I said "Animal fat".

But if you would like to take a few credits in anatomy and physiology you would find that Fat is required for healthy development of a child's CNS system and that can be from animal fat, but it also can come from eggs and yogurt as well. You can also get it form nuts which is plant based, but you need a bit more fat than what most plants provide generally based on what a child will eat.

You need to look at this with less emotion, I am not arguing for or against vegetarianism I am simply stating what is known, that is all

and if it helps you for the record I am pretty much Pollotarian and Pescatarian (Pescetarian) with long bouts of full on vegetarianism. I don't eat much meat and I eat no red meat. But I am not out to vilify those that do on faulty and/or unsupported science either.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Humans were not omnivores until they invented fire and learned how to cook meat.

There is some evidence associating Homo habilis and even Australopithecus afarensis with butchery, but even if regular omnivorous behaviour started with Homo erectus, that means we've been doing it for about 2 million years. Vegetarianism was invented for religious reasons in India and Greece about 2500 years ago. And no, I don't believe in progress — neither did the Greeks or Indians, for that matter.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry Shiva, but the altered vision of reality that you portray above doesn't exist in the real world. They were fascists, according to the BBC, and you're defending them, that's why your comments have a credibility gap!!

Hehe. Who isn't a fascist according to the BBC?

Personally, I don't think it was even an attack, per se, just some hooligans, probably drunk, having what they thought was some fun. I'd like to see people try that in Texas.

 

[Nous]

No, but I've seen deer eat rabbits.

So why do you think that scientists are so confused about the diet of deer? National Geographic lists the diet of the white-tailed deer as herbivore: http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/white-tailed-deer/

I’ve known farmers who kept their horses, goats and sheep all in the same pen or enclosed pasture. How is that possible if horses are omnivores that kill and eat smaller animals every chance they get? Zoos often keep gazelle and zebras and various other animals classified as herbivores all in the same enclosure. Why aren't the smaller animals disappearing if the larger herbivores are killing and eating the smaller ones at every opportunity?

Again, I ask: why do you believe someone formulated such words as herbivore, carnivore, sanguivore, insectivore, etc.?

 

[Nous]

First that means we are feeding cats improperly, they would not seek out those things on their own. In that case it would be forced not natural.

Then your definition of "omnivore" is inadequate.

What would be the "natural," not "forced" diet for humans? Perhaps it would be something like what our closest living relatives eat?

As for the other...first show me where I said "Animal fat".

But if you would like to take a few credits in anatomy and physiology you would find that Fat is required for healthy development of a child's CNS system and that can be from animal fat, but it also can come from eggs and yogurt as well. You can also get it form nuts which is plant based, but you need a bit more fat than what most plants provide generally based on what a child will eat.

You need to look at this with less emotion, I am not arguing for or against vegetarianism I am simply stating what is known, that is all

All I asked for is evidence by which to substantiate your claims.

 

[Nietzsche]

So why do you think that scientists are so confused about the diet of deer? National Geographic lists the diet of the white-tailed deer as herbivore: http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/white-tailed-deer/

I’ve known farmers who kept their horses, goats and sheep all in the same pen or enclosed pasture. How is that possible if horses are omnivores that kill and eat smaller animals every chance they get? Zoos often keep gazelle and zebras and various other animals classified as herbivores all in the same enclosure. Why aren't the smaller animals disappearing if the larger herbivores are killing and eating the smaller ones at every opportunity?

Again, I ask: why do you believe someone formulated such words as herbivore, carnivore, sanguivore, insectivore, etc.?

Do you just not read or do you purposely ignore what I say? I never said the diet was "confused". I said nothing is 100%. Sanguivores may be excluded, if only because it's highly unlikely an animal with a stomach that is built to digest nothing but blood could eat anything heartier than that. But animals whos guts can digest cellulose? Meat is no problem there.

Deer recorded eating birds.

 

[Wu Wei]

Primates hardly ever eat meat, for ages anthropologist thought they were complete vegetarians because THEY HAD NEVER SEEN THEM EAT MEAT. Now they think once in while they do, but they are primarily vegetarian and their teeth are not more herbivorous than ours, so go figure. Humans were not omnivores until they invented fire and learned how to cook meat.

Watch any nature show and you see them eating insects..... Listen, you said 99% all I asked is where does that figure come from. If you pulled it out of the sky that's fine, if you have scientific report that says that then great, point me in that direction. But making up arbitrary numbers is not going to prove your case. Currently it appears that you are simply pulling figures out of the sky to make an argument that you cannot back up with facts. You are just throwing out statements with no backing and then getting argumentative when called on them.

I am more than willing to say that it is highly likely that most primates eat more vegetation than protein from living creatures. but I am not willing to say that makes them vegetarian because it does not. They eat what they can find to survive and that includes meat. I am sorry if the actual definition of Omnivore is a problem for you but based on that definition primates are omnivores, and so are humans, and that is mostly based on the digestive system's ability to get nutrients out of the food that is eaten. Give a cat a vegetarian diet or for that matter a mostly vegetarian diet and it will not be healthy at all and likely not survive. But humans, primates and many other mammals can get by on both meat and/or vegetables and survive and by definition that makes them omnivores.


Now to this bit

You then said this

So your argument is that because their teeth look more carnivourous than ours, and they are vegetarian, we should eat meat, yeah great logic!!

in response to my showing you the differences in the teeth after you tried to base your argument your argument on the similarities between our teeth and other primates, which is exactly the logic you are saying I was using. And I was not using that logic at all, I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic based on teeth

If you want to throw stuff out there as an argument expect to get called on it and don't get all huffy when you do, it is a much better way to promote conversation.

You are not answering questions you are throwing out baseless statements and getting a bit huffy, that is being argumentative and not promoting a discussion and that rarely works at getting ones point across or proving ones point