Oh, you mean those little nubs we humans have? That does deserve a LOL. Gorillas have canines, too.
Quote by: RickSp
You also were born with a long intestinal tract which all herbivores are born with. You also are not able to process your own vitamin C which carnivores WITH CANINES can all do.
Unlike all other large mammals, modern humans are able to choose what they subsist on.
Like many other large mammals, humans are omnivores.
We most definetly need a mix of nutrients, minerals, and vitamins. That is a given, like most mammals -- and we can achieve that in this modern world without much difficulty. To spend an extra five minutes at the supermarket when first becoming a vegetarian, until you get it down in choosing your foods, is a small price to pay for unselfish people when it is the difference between the economic demand that pulls animals through the miserable disassembly line -- often still concious due to inexperienced workers or malfunctioning knockers, etc...
We need a mix of nutrients which are most easily met through eating both meats and vegetables.
No pretending. Btw, why the oblique insults?
If you want to pretend that you are a cow that is up to you.
Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has? Don`t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt, and you can read the original piece with over a hundred references from researchers, scientists, professors, and other experts from well respected orgs and publications like the USDA, American Cancer Society, AMA, etc...
I find no compelling nutritional nor moral argument for vegetarianism. Is a wolf immoral when it eats only meat? Is a sheep enlighted for eating grains?
[COLOR="Blue"]Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. ...
The United States Dietary Guidelines (23) state, "Vegetarian diets can be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and meet Recommended Dietary Allowances for nutrients."[/COLOR]
Source link: HERE.
Human nature in its natural form is pretty scary. That is why we have laws to protect us from the anarchy that if it were left unrestrained would surely develope. Even as canibalism is still alive in some corners of the world, anthropologists will tell you it was more widespread in the past. So, if we seem to have naturally consumed our fellow man, then why should we not continue doing so? After all, according to your reason we shouldn`t try to repress our "nature."
We act according to our nature. There is nothing wrong with that. Trying to be what we are not seems silly to me.
That is right, we are animals! Our distinguishing trait however is that we have developed a sense of morals, empathy, and a modern society that makes it permissable that we need not cause misery to other animals. The "what is natural" argument is moot. It sure isn`t natural for us to do many things, but we do them anyway. What is "possible" is what guides humans as we seek to better our lives and societies. Walking home and having to take a crap, I don`t reason, "well, it was natural for my ancestors to crap in the great wide open, so I am going to let one go here on my neighbor`s lawn." No. I would reason it is possible for me to make it another 20 yards to my house and the bathroom -- in essence thwarting my natural urge to relieve myself just anywhere I wish for my own pleasure. You are resting your argument on selfishness based on natural whims.
You say "if we ...do not want to be treated like animals, then why should we act like them?" Then what are we, if not animals? And what is wrong with being what we are?
And why should just humans be the sole target of moral considerations?
I apply my morality to dealings with my fellow humans.
Why should you be opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals if there are no moral considerations to be given to them? I have no moral considerations to a stone or tin can, therefore I don`t see it cruel if a child walks down a street kicking one or the other. If it were a kitten though, I would be morally opposed to a child doing that? Explain to us how "unecessary cruelty" is divorced from "moral considerations".
I am opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals which does not mean that I am opposed to eating animals for food.
At one time I didn`t either. Over time people move on the spectrum of their beliefs. I was once where you are now. I changed.
I am also wearing leather shoes and a leather belt and I see no moral wrong in doing so.
I will, and I don`t expect you to change overnight or in the course of this discussion. In fact, you are just a sounding board for those who are undecided and looking in on the debate. The undecided are my target, surely not you. But, I do hope you continue being a sounding board. In debate, though, I, too, am a sounding board for your point of view. I care about moving the audience.
So again, if you only want to eat veggies, that is your choice. Don't expect me to be impressed by your enlightenment or sense of higher moral virtue.
Most vegetarians who choose this diet for moral reasons engage in debate to move those on the spectrum, because we know that as the trend grows stronger, our choices and power will increase and cause your meat at restaurants and supermarkets to become more expensive (i.e. through more security for processing plants and farms, less demand, smaller economies of scale). Flesh eaters on the other hand consistantly leave the debate little by little over time. I would be surprised if you stay in this debate long with me.