Homo sapiens are anatomically similar to frugivores, more so than omnivores.
>>8158456
No, entomophagist.
>>8158439
bait
meat is good
do you want us to cross reference all the points that were made about this in the other thread or do you just use the catalog next time?
I eat almost solely meat plus grainshit (noodles/rice/bread), no fruits or veggies ever.
Haven't died yet.
>>8158572
How are your bowel movements?
>>8158439
you literally just compared monkeys and humans in contrast to bears, horses, and cats. no shit we're more similar to monkeys than them. means nothing
>humans have access to tools
>therefore they're not meant to eat meat
K
I liked the thread that just asked
"Would there be less suffering if more people were vegan" (or similar). The mental gymnastics people did to not have to answer with a simple "yes" was truly a sight to see.
>>8158602
really depends on how you qualify "suffering" and the degree of "more"
Not surprising that it leads to a lot of "mental gymnastics"
>>8158593
Not to mention, monkeys eat meat too.
>>8158615
Both terms are well-defined. 1 person is more. 1 billions persons are more. While 1 person might arguably make no difference, a hundred of them will. But good on you proving my point.
>>8158629
Meat is delicious, not eating meat would lead to a bit of human suffering (times a lot of people). Considering that meat is relatively humanely made and humans are much more complex, I would say I don't think the answer is obvious.
>>8158629
Just saying, you cant really answer that question sufficiently with just a yes or no.
The answer might be completely different, depending on how many more vegans there are. Esspecially if everybody became vegan.
>>8158577
Snake shit usually, but nothing problematic.
>>8158439
Explain our brains then.
>>8158439
Why do vegans still live? Why don't you people just kill yourselves to save the rest of us your meaningless existence?
>>8158439
Most of us don't tend to shit ourselves and get sick the second meat touches our stomachs. Guess that makes us an omnivore.
>>8158439
>baboon eating living antelope.webm
>>8158633
Ahahaha, no.
You don't suffer because you don't eat one particular food. There is a lot of good-tasting vegan food. And you're often eating it without a second thought.
Reasoning like this is exactly what I meant.
>>8158637
>you cant really answer that question sufficiently with just a yes or no
Yeah, if you try to find loopholes in the wording, or think of really odd situations where it might not be true. Or in other words, if you try everything just to not have to answer yes.
>>8159253
You're getting desperate.
>>8158439
I would like to see sources behind this bullshit image.
>>8158439
Eating only fruits causes pancreatic damage for us humans.
Why is it so difficult for people to have a good balanced diet?
I want to stick my peepee in that human mouth
>>8159264
Not really. That calculation of suffering is a complicated one. If certain animals are no longer bred for consumption and are released into the wild where they must fight and kill like every other animal, does this mean there is less suffering, or more? If certain animals are no longer bred for consumption and instead go extinct as a result, does this mean there is less suffering? And, if so, is considering only this singular metric when making a decision a good idea when it naturally leads to the conclusion to kill all life to save ourselves from each other? Are there fates worse than death? Is there such a thing as greater or lesser suffering when all living things eventually die? Is current suffering worse than future suffering? What's the opportunity cost associated with inflicting suffering? Would displacing employees who inflict a certain amount suffering from their current line of work cause the creation of or inflate the size of jobs which inflict more suffering than their current one?
These aren't mental barriers set up because people are scared of eating soy. These are questions the naturally curious (and pedantic) consider. You're only frustrated because people aren't using the same line of thinking you tried to railroad them into.
>>8159303
money.
>>8159337
priorities.
seems everyone can afford a smartphone with a data plan, how many pound of edible vegetable matter could you buy with that cash?
>>8159237
>Or in other words, if you try everything just to not have to answer yes
Thats just not true. It is an extremely vague question about a very complex topic with a lot of implications. Just because you dont agree with people or may have a different idea of "suffering", doesnt mean they do "mental gymnastics".
There would be less suffering if there were 1000 more vegans but there would be more suffering if everybody became a vegan
>>8159321
If you decide you don't want to eat animal products anymore, does that mean that animals have to be released into the wild? No. You're making unrealistic assumptions (everyone suddenly decides to be vegan) so that they best fit your case. It wouldn't happen all at once and why would animals have to be released into the wild? They'll just not be bred anymore. Maybe some will keep them as pets.
If you think realistically, and only consider cases you can actually (easily) do yourself, there is a clear answer.
But sure, if you twist it around enough, you are actually saving the world by eating meat.
>There would be less suffering if there were 1000 more vegans but there would be more suffering if everybody became a vegan
Read the question again. It said "more" people. Which of your examples fits that best? 1000 people, or all people? Clearly the former. Which is also the more realistic case.
>>8158572
>yet.
Sure, eating plutonium is fine and dandy for the first 24 hours...
>>8158602
>suffering
No, suffering is a very broad term that goes beyond any diet philosophy.
Wanna know what was a major influence in the evolution of human consumption and digestion? Fucking cooking!
Yes. We've been cooking meat for at least 1.9 million years. No need for big teeth and claws to hunt and devour, when you have spears, fire, hands and... fucking intelligence!
Truth is hardcore vegetarians are mostly sickly and weak people. Not to mention the only reason that such a lifestyle is made possible is the abundancy of goodies offered by post-industrial revolution modern civilization. Back then food was scarce and a commitment to a non-meat diet was a death sentence.
But hey! Give me lab grown bacon with no nervous system and I can be a bacon vegan too!
>>8159564
That would taste horrible, no delicious suffering.
>>8159337
>Tfw Murrica
>Tfw in Germany healthy food is cheaper than MCD
with healthy food i don´t mean special snowflake
super foods
>>8159570
But suffering is sour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSE_meat
>>8159564
this. only entitled first world hipsters have the audacity to brag about their picky eating habits
>>8159586
I don't like my meat sweet.
>>8159599
Then coat the dicks with some vinegar before you suck them Alex DeLarge.
>>8158439
Human's eat cooked food. It's more tender to eat so our teeth reflect that. We pretty much are omnivores, there's no way a human could be optimally healthy on fruit alone.
>>8159615
Here's evidence that cooking food changed our bodily structure, I can guess that applied to our jaws and teeth too.
>>8159627
Fuck im styupid: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/eating-cooked-food-made-us-human-study-finds
>>8159615
>implying cooked food has been around long enough for us to have changed significantly since then
>also implying that teeth shape would make any significant change even if it had enough time, given that the existence of the food means its largely not being selected for
wew.
I dont think it is even debatable, wether we are omnivores or not.
We are. by definition. we always were
>>8159640
Cave animals in pitch blackness lose their ability to see and even their visual organs in just a few dozen generations. Those calories not being spent on eyes are saved for other things and are statistically relevant.
1.7 million years is a lot. Even if it was 100k it would be enough.
Seriously read what this guy posted >>8159629
>>8159651
No, we were herbivores.
>>8159664
oh sure. we are the only herbivores that eat everything. god works in mysterious ways
>>8159547
seems to like you are the one who ignores imlications and twists that utterly vague premise around to have a clear answer
>>8159303
How much fruits a day is to much
>>8159303
>Why is it so difficult for people to have a good balanced diet?
I dont know. I always just get what I'm hungry for and I'm not getting fat.
>>8158439
>chimps don't eat meat
>>8159237
>You don't suffer because you don't eat one particular food.
That's patently false. I have someone in my family who cannot eat meat due to renal damage and he's told me he misses it dearly.
Btw, if you want to decrease suffering in the world you should donate everything you earn except what you need for bare survival to some efficient charity like here:
>http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
>>8158439
If humans are supposed to only eat fruit, why do so many babies die on fruit diets?
>>8159687
>you werent so sure about what exactly "more" means yourself. everybody is "more" too. There is nothing clear about vague phrasing like that
Not him. I don't even know what you're talking about but usually when people say more, they intend to mean more than one person but certainly less than all people. If they meant all people, they would say that. And if they meant nearly everyone, they would say that too.
>>8158439
Hey, just looking at his chart, it says that humans have alkaline urine. This is not true. human urine tends to be acidic.
>>8160180
There is a lot wrong with that chart, don't sweat the bait.
