Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[Bad Wolf]

I got bad news for you mister.
If you really want to dig the remains of the past then you will be surprised to find that our far far ancestors have similar characteristics to the present humans.
No sign of whatsoever that he was omnivore, and this guy was living over a million years ago.

"Eurydice", Australopithecus robustus
Discovered by André Keyser in 1994 at the Drimolen cave in South Africa. Estimated age is between 1.5 and 2.0 million years. This is an almost complete skull and lower jaw of a female, one of the most complete hominid skulls ever found, and the first significant fossil of a female robustus. A fossil of a male robustus lower jaw, nicknamed Orpheus (DNH 8), was found a few inches away from it. (Keyser 2000)

And once again, all you have done is show us a picture. No analyses on the teeth or jaws or bone structure. Once again, just you showing a picture and talking about it, isn't evidence.

What a bankrupt theory you ever bring up!
It is amazing!
The food habit is like the fashion habit.
It comes and go according so many factors.
My grandparents use to eat meat in small quantity once a week.
Their proteins came from beans, nuts and whole cereals.
Now it is a fashion to eat meat everyday.

Fashion and eating capabilities are not the same thing. Enrico, answer me this: Do you know what an omnivore is? If so, would you care to (in your own words) define it?

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

Enrico, listen to me here. I have already told you this but, I'm human, and I salivate when I see raw meat. Guess what that means.....you're wrong.

[bennyboy]

In establishing the history of meat-eating in hominids, you need logic: tooth wear and shape, presence of various isotopes, etc., as well as evidence from camp sites and caves.

I got bad news for you mister.
If you really want to dig the remains of the past then you will be surprised to find that our far far ancestors have similar characteristics to the present humans.
No sign of whatsoever that he was omnivore, and this guy was living over a million years ago.

Cavemen. Animal bones. /finished

What a bankrupt theory you ever bring up!
It is amazing!
The food habit is like the fashion habit.
It comes and go according so many factors.
My grandparents use to eat meat in small quantity once a week.
Their proteins came from beans, nuts and whole cereals.
Now it is a fashion to eat meat everyday.

To a degree, this is true. Many people in developed countries eat MUCH more meat than they need. And I consider this excess, accompanied by suffering as it is, immoral. But I'm asking people to transcend their nature in favor of a moral idea-- not pretending that eating meat is against human nature. I mean, how often do horses adopt the "fashion" of eating meat? Or cows? Or rabbits? Pretty rarely.

Anyway, I'm not sure how your argument that your grandparents were omnivores is meant to support your thesis that people aren't omnivorous.

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

Evolution. Cooked foods are easier to digest, and offer a better net intake of calories, allowing us to burn a truly incredible 25% of our calories on our giant brains.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...tudy-finds

No fire, no humans. Simple.

[Little Rik]

Tell me why we humans do not salivate when we see raw meat so we can continue the talk.

Tell me why I do not salivate when I see raw vegetables.

Although your arguments are all bankrupt they can be interesting at the same time.
Humans natural foods are mainly fruits, nuts and to a lesser degree grains vegetables and beans.
A dog which is omnivore never eat herbs but when he is sick he does eat them because his instinct tell him that the substances inside these herbs will heal him.
At the same time raw vegetable will hardly make an human being salivate but his feeling-instinct tell him that he will feel better by eating them time by time as the body let the person know that there is a need for them.
So human being tend to salivate with their main food which is fruit a bit less for nuts and less and less for grains, vegetable, and beans.
It works like in a scale of importance as you can see.

Anything raw does not make me salivate, but when you start cooking it you can smell it then you salivate.

One more bankrupt argument.
When i was a teen during the school break most of us students use to go into the toilets to smoke.
The smoke didn't make me feel so bad because i got use to it despite the smoke was so thick that you could hardly see around but now that i haven't been smoking for ages and ages i feel sick if i smell even a bit of smoke.
Now the problem with being able to have a proper judgement is that if you are use to something bad you can not really have a proper judgement but if you are not engaged in that bad then you can understand what is right and what is wrong.
People who eat meat regularly loose the capacity to judge what is their natural food so the looking at a ripe fruit bring no normal response into their natural instinct and that is the reason why the human being natural food means nothing to you.

Seriously though, salivating is just the anticipation of food. Ever heard of Ivan Pavlovs Dog Experiment(were he rings the bell and gives dogs food)? We condition ourselves to salivate by cooking food. The dogs in the experiment still salivated even when no food was present.

One more bankrupt argument.
Dogs or not dogs everybody tend to salivate when they are angry but you will see that a person that follow his-her natural instinct will not increase his salivation in the sight of raw meat but if you show a ripe fruit he-she will increase his-her salivation tremendously.

---

And once again, all you have done is show us a picture. No analyses on the teeth or jaws or bone structure. Once again, just you showing a picture and talking about it, isn't evidence.

As you can see in the picture both ominids and human being have not EVER had canine teeth to kill creatures.
What this means?
It means that if it is in the nature of man to kill and eat creature they would have strong canine teeth.
Nature response to human beings is to provide them with whatever they need and that is not canine teeth to kill prey because human being nature is to travel toward the goal of life and that does not involve man to kill and eat higher form of lives.
Hippo have huge canine teeth but that is because they need to kill enemies especially those who threaten them like the crocs not to eat them.

Fashion and eating capabilities are not the same thing. Enrico, answer me this: Do you know what an omnivore is? If so, would you care to (in your own words) define it?

Animals which their body is made to process different things including meat. (dogs, bears even chickens and so on).

Enrico, listen to me here. I have already told you this but, I'm human, and I salivate when I see raw meat. Guess what that means.....you're wrong.

As i just answer in the previous post to StoryBook it means that you lost the capability to have a proper judgement and your body-mind get used to deal with filthy items.
Capish?

[Bad Wolf]

Although your arguments are all bankrupt they can be interesting at the same time.
Humans natural foods are mainly fruits, nuts and to a lesser degree grains vegetables and beans.

And meat, don't forget meat

As you can see in the picture both ominids and human being have not EVER had canine teeth to kill creatures.
What this means?

We don't have huge canine teeth to kill creatures because we didn't use our teeth to kill them! Jesus fucking Christ!

It means that if it is in the nature of man to kill and eat creature they would have strong canine teeth.

No not at all, humans either scavenged from carcasses killed by other predators or they hunted using spears. As a lions main weapon is its teeth, ours was our hands.

Nature response to human beings is to provide them with whatever they need and that is not canine teeth to kill prey because human being nature is to travel toward the goal of life and that does not involve man to kill and eat higher form of lives.

Mindless babbling here.

Hippo have huge canine teeth but that is because they need to kill enemies especially those who threaten them like the crocs not to eat them.

Exactly, the only reason they have those teeth is to defend themselves. They have nothing to do with eating at all. So your point is invalid. If you were to look at the hippos other teeth, you would see that they are adapted to exclusively eat plant matter

Animals which their body is made to process different things including meat. (dogs, bears even chickens and so on).

So this is your definition of an omnivore correct?
So by your definition, we are omnivores. We have canine teeth for gripping meat, incisors for slicing meat and molars for chewing both meat and plant. We can digest both meat and plant.

As i just answer in the previous post to StoryBook it means that you lost the capability to have a proper judgement and your body-mind get used to deal with filthy items.
Capish?

Oh how convenient! one of your made up explanations that means whoever disagrees with you is obviously deluded.
How about you come up with a peer-reviewed, scientific study that supports what you are saying. Then maybe, we will believe you. We don't want stupid spiritual websites, we don't want links to voodoo spiritual woo books. We want an article, posted in a peer-reviewed, scientific, mainstream journal.
I would recommend looking on Google Scholar.

[Little Rik]

Cavemen. Animal bones. /finished

If it would be natural for ominids or humans to kill and eat meat then they would have been provided by mother nature with strong canine teeth and a digestive system able to process meat but as we can see we haven't not.
So what it means the evidence that even caveman were eating meat?
As i already explained in previous post it means that during hard times man restore to eating whatever is available and even during easier times he can carry on with this unnatural habit.

To a degree, this is true. Many people in developed countries eat MUCH more meat than they need. And I consider this excess, accompanied by suffering as it is, immoral. But I'm asking people to transcend their nature in favor of a moral idea-- not pretending that eating meat is against human nature.

People like you that behave like Gandhi or the Dalai Lama do more damage that meat eaters.
Meat eaters will learn the hard way when vascular diseases will strike when their arteries will choke because of saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxins coming mainly from meat eating so they one day will shut up and the meat policy will finally change but you with your refusal to fight and have compassion for those who cause problem for everybody will serve to procrastinate the rot.
Gandhi although said something interesting like....there is enough for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed.....did nothing to get rid of the British invaders.
The same with the Dalai Lama who instead of organizing a revolt against the Chinese occupier keep on talking against violence.
Peace and sanity always come after the struggle whether is physical or mental struggle never after words of peace.

I mean, how often do horses adopt the "fashion" of eating meat? Or cows? Or rabbits? Pretty rarely.

Mother nature did not provide herbivorous with the capacity to digest meat.
That is one of the reason why madcow disease sprung up after these animals were given food containing rest of other animals.
Humans follow similar problems as their body can not deal with meat eating.
The difference between herbivorous and man is that while man has the capacity to make decisions (in this case wrong one) animals can not and they are really stuck with instinct and their instinct tell them what to eat and what not to eat.

Anyway, I'm not sure how your argument that your grandparents were omnivores is meant to support your thesis that people aren't omnivorous.

Most of the poor people feel envy to see that rich people have the money to buy and eat meat.
This did not happen only in the past but happen all the time as we can see in the emerging countries where better economic condition allow people to buy more and more meat.
So is not that my grandparents were omnivore by nature but it was that they follow bad habits which were build up in the past for the same reasons and as i already said because the habit of eating meat continue after periods of hardship.

Evolution. Cooked foods are easier to digest, and offer a better net intake of calories, allowing us to burn a truly incredible 25% of our calories on our giant brains.

Unnatural cooked food like meat may well be easy to digest but what this has got to do with the natural human being food like fruit and nuts which if you cook you will ruin their nutritional value?

No fire, no humans. Simple.

Garbage.
Fruit and nuts need no fire.

---

We don't have huge canine teeth to kill creatures because we didn't use our teeth to kill them! Jesus fucking Christ!

So you mean that humans had to wait to eat meat until they develop the mental capacity to fabricate spears or other instruments?
Well in the meantime which could last thousand of years you reckon they only feed on carcasses?
You are a real joke boy!

No not at all, humans either scavenged from carcasses killed by other predators or they hunted using spears. As a lions main weapon is its teeth, ours was our hands.

Again, how did they hunt before they had enough brains to invent weapons?

Hippo have huge canine teeth but that is because they need to kill enemies especially those who threaten them like the crocs not to eat them.

Exactly, the only reason they have those teeth is to defend themselves. They have nothing to do with eating at all. So your point is invalid. If you were to look at the hippos other teeth, you would see that they are adapted to exclusively eat plant matter

Did i say something different?

Animals which their body is made to process different things including meat. (dogs, bears even chickens and so on).

So this is your definition of an omnivore correct?
So by your definition, we are omnivores. We have canine teeth for gripping meat, incisors for slicing meat and molars for chewing both meat and plant. We can digest both meat and plant.

You are running too fast with your imagination.
1) Having teeth to deal with chewing meat has nothing to do with having a digestive system able to digest it.
2) We have very small canine teeth which you can not compare with the teeth of omnivore creature.

Oh how convenient! one of your made up explanations that means whoever disagrees with you is obviously deluded.
How about you come up with a peer-reviewed, scientific study that supports what you are saying. Then maybe, we will believe you. We don't want stupid spiritual websites, we don't want links to voodoo spiritual woo books. We want an article, posted in a peer-reviewed, scientific, mainstream journal.
I would recommend looking on Google Scholar.

Peer review are important but they don't mean that what they say is truth all the time.
If what they say is true that meat is necessary then the hospitals would be almost empty but as we know they are crammed with people who suffer with vascular diseases and that is due to saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxins coming mainly from a meat diet.

[Bad Wolf]

If it would be natural for ominids or humans to kill and eat meat then they would have been provided by mother nature with strong canine teeth

Wrong, for reasons I have already told you

and a digestive system able to process meat but as we can see we haven't not.

Yes we do, we have a digestive system that can process meat. How can you even argue otherwise?

So what it means the evidence that even caveman were eating meat?
As i already explained in previous post it means that during hard times man restore to eating whatever is available and even during easier times he can carry on with this unnatural habit.

The very fact that your cavemen could eat meat means that they were omnivores. Situation and preference is irrelevant. Your whole point here is irrelevant.

People like you that behave like Gandhi or the Dalai Lama do more damage that meat eaters.
Meat eaters will learn the hard way when vascular diseases will strike when their arteries will choke because of saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxins coming mainly from meat eating so they one day will shut up and the meat policy will finally change but you with your refusal to fight and have compassion for those who cause problem for everybody will serve to procrastinate the rot.

Enrico, I weigh 56 Kilograms and am perfectly healthy and I eat meat. Trust me its not the meat that makes fat people fat and their arteries choke. Its the quantities that they eat that does that. We are 70% water or something like that but we can still die from drinking too much water.

Humans follow similar problems as their body can not deal with meat eating.

Lying again. Enrico, there is no debate here. There is no argument. Humans have been eating meat for as long as you could classify them as human ie hundreds of thousands of years. We can deal with eating meat.

The difference between herbivorous and man is that while man has the capacity to make decisions (in this case wrong one) animals can not and they are really stuck with instinct and their instinct tell them what to eat and what not to eat.

Animals can't make decisions? interesting theory except that lions for example need to be taught how to hunt animals and how to hunt different animals. Birds make decisions whether or not to try and eat a certain insect based off of its colours.
I'll say it again, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Unnatural cooked food like meat may well be easy to digest but what this has got to do with the natural human being food like fruit and nuts which if you cook you will ruin their nutritional value?

One of your points back there was that humans can't digest meat (which was wrong) Now you are agreeing that cooked meat is easier to digest. Can you not see the contradiction? By your warped reality, humans eating any kind of meat is impossible.

Garbage.
Fruit and nuts need no fire.

(Slow clapping)

So you mean that humans had to wait to eat meat until they develop the mental capacity to fabricate spears or other instruments?
Well in the meantime which could last thousand of years you reckon they only feed on carcasses?
You are a real joke boy!

All your ignorance is coming from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Humans did not have to wait to eat meat until they developed the mental capacity to fabricate spears because they were not human, you could not classify them as human. I'm not denying that if you go back far enough along our evolutionary tree you will find an ancestor species of ours that ate exclusively meat or plants. But that is irrelevant. Your claim is that human beings are not omnivores.
Early humans didn't need spears any way. Chimps hunt without spears, as do baboons. All the tools did was make hunting more efficient. The time scales we are talking about here are impossible for anyone to truly fathom and appreciate but this particularly applies to you. You have shown a complete ignorance of all things biological. You are really a lost cause.

Again, how did they hunt before they had enough brains to invent weapons?

You don't need brains to hunt. And besides chimps use tools. There have been documented cases of chimps using spears to hunt. And it is common for them to fish for termites using a slender twig. Some monkeys crack shells and nuts with heavy stones. The fact that relatively unintelligent animals (compared to us) can use tools, implies that you don't need to be too clever to make them. Early humans would have been as smart and indeed smarter than todays chimps which are on the same level as a 5 year old.

Did i say something different?

I was pointing out that your argument about hippos was irrelevant as their tusks had nothing to do with eating at all.

You are running too fast with your imagination.
1) Having teeth to deal with chewing meat has nothing to do with having a digestive system able to digest it.

If you understand evolution, having the teeth to deal with chewing meat, kind of guarantees that an animal can also digest it. And we can, so that point there is irrelevant.

2) We have very small canine teeth which you can not compare with the teeth of omnivore creature.

I have already explained to you why we don't have big canine teeth. If you aren't going to listen and look at the evidence.....

Peer review are important but they don't mean that what they say is truth all the time.

Peer review is the only way of making sure that someone's findings are accurate, reliable and valid, you ignorant twat.
So know i'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't have any evidence for what you are saying so now i'm going to invoke Hitches Razor. (You might need to look that up, dumbass)

If what they say is true that meat is necessary

If what 'who' say is true?

then the hospitals would be almost empty but as we know they are crammed with people who suffer with vascular diseases and that is due to saturated fats, bad cholesterol and toxins coming mainly from a meat diet.

Aaaaaaand yet again no evidence to back up your assertions.

Enrico, seriously now. Fuck off. Go away. You are so hopelessly ignorant of the world around you that there is no point trying to educate you and I can guess that anyone who has ever tried gave up. Mainly due to your amazing arrogance. How do you do it? You demonstrably know so little about everything you talk about yet you type away assured that you are right by your own ego. It must be so difficult to be so intellectually dishonest, ignorant and bankrupt all at the same time. How do you do it? How do you live with yourself?

[StoryBook]

Although your arguments are all bankrupt they can be interesting at the same time.
Humans natural foods are mainly fruits, nuts and to a lesser degree grains vegetables and beans.

Meat is also natural for humans.

A dog which is omnivore never eat herbs but when he is sick he does eat them because his instinct tell him that the substances inside these herbs will heal him.

At the same time raw vegetable will hardly make an human being salivate but his feeling-instinct tell him that he will feel better by eating them time by time as the body let the person know that there is a need for them.
So human being tend to salivate with their main food which is fruit a bit less for nuts and less and less for grains, vegetable, and beans.
It works like in a scale of importance as you can see.

One more bankrupt argument.
When i was a teen during the school break most of us students use to go into the toilets to smoke.
The smoke didn't make me feel so bad because i got use to it despite the smoke was so thick that you could hardly see around but now that i haven't been smoking for ages and ages i feel sick if i smell even a bit of smoke.
Now the problem with being able to have a proper judgement is that if you are use to something bad you can not really have a proper judgement but if you are not engaged in that bad then you can understand what is right and what is wrong.
People who eat meat regularly loose the capacity to judge what is their natural food so the looking at a ripe fruit bring no normal response into their natural instinct and that is the reason why the human being natural food means nothing to you.

Where do you come up with this shit. No really, who's the idiot that taught you this?

One more bankrupt argument.
Dogs or not dogs everybody tend to salivate when they are angry but you will see that a person that follow his-her natural instinct will not increase his salivation in the sight of raw meat but if you show a ripe fruit he-she will increase his-her salivation tremendously.

Nope.

[rexbeccarox]

Enrico, if humans are only meant to eat fruit and nuts why do I (and many many others in the world) have an allergy to nuts?

Also, we don't need huge canines because we have opposable thumbs, and our digestive systems are certainly omnivorous. Just because you say they're not doesn't make it so.

Seriously, your willful ignorance is astounding.

[Bad Wolf]

I can hear his ego chattering away right now:
'Don't list to them! Don't listen to them! You're not wrong! You're never wrong. You're right, everybody else is wrong. Who cares if what you believe is demonstrably wrong, science just isn't doing it right.'

[KUSA]

Here's some raw meat that makes me salivate.