Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.

meh I've heard mostly vegans make this dumbass argument.

I definitely support vegans but I don't support pseudoscientific bullshit no matter who says it.

Humans have teeth suitable for both meat and plant foods. So I would say humans are omnivores.

I may be wrong, but a 100% vegan only diet I think requires supplements to be taken for certain things like proteins that humans need in order to live. Of course, those certain proteins are found in meats.

However, I think saying humans are carnovires would also be incorrect, and a 100% meat only diet would be I think equally as unhealthy as a 100% plant only diet.

The joke is making fun of people who call us carnivores, though. Our teeth are very different from land carnivores, as well.

Neither do cows but I've seen one too many slurp a Snake like spaghetti and eat baby birds as if they were KitKats

That depends on which humans and where. There are still plenty of tribes that live in areas where vegetation simply does not support their population. Luckily, humans evolved to be feed on more things than most things on the planet. We can eat plants, fungi, bugs, fish, etc.

So you're right. Humans don't need to kill animals. We can survive by killing just about any living thing on this planet. We can even eat things that would otherwise be super toxic to us by learning how to cook it, peel it, or skin it.

Nothing does.

No. It never is

Suuure.

And not all social justice advocates treat it like a religion. But some do.

Also, trying to compare veganism, a system of belief, to genocide resistance and human rights is absurd to the point that it exactly makes my point.

There is no world in which fighting genocide is the same thing as avoiding animal products. None, no way, no how. The arrogance of your statement is so far beyond the usual responses my little troll statement gets that I'm outright flummoxed. I can't believe anyone would be that stupid, that arrogant, that ridiculous.

And that goes just as much for lgbt+ rights. You are outright absurd making that comparison.

And that absurdity is exactly why veganism is a religion to way too many vegans. Like, I'm not anti vegan, I know and love many, I just like getting online vegans riled up for entertainment. But you jumped the damn shark big time homie. That kind of thinking, that's why people that hate vegans hate them.

Man, I find it hard to not just start calling you names because damn, son.

I think it's just a diet.

You are completely ignoring the fact, that for many it is too time consuming and involved to go vegan. And then you are imposing your belief that others should invest the same amount of resources, be it time or money, or they are worse human beings not caring about animals. In other words, being able to switch your diet is usually a sign of at least slight financial privilege. I just had some tofu so you don't have to preach to me. But let others be and do not compare veganism to anti-genocide. It is absolutely ridiculous.

If they act like a zealot, then yes. Most, like most vegans, are not zealots and we can have a great conversation. Your name gives me the feeling that a productive conversation might be difficult. But, I'll try my best. 😁

This is your take, from someone who defines themselves as militant? Lol.

It's absolutely a religion. One of the definitions of religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." The examples you mention are much less narrowly defined. And if they started persecuting people who don't join their specific method, then yes, they would be, too.

I mean, here you are proselytizing with poorly thought out memes. What's more religious than that?

something else wikipedia agrees....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Diet

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material. Human groups have adopted a range of diets from purely vegan to primarily carnivorous.

Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.

Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here's a solid article on differences.

Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we've had multiple discussions on it.

Four.

Yes? And carnivorous ivories have only pointy teeth.

How can I downvote twice?

Look at the name of the person posting. Kinda makes a statement.

While in general you're right, you're neglecting the fact that theres plenty of land that is suitable for raising animals which isn't suitable for farming. Specifically: The Norwegian population would have been incapable of surviving historically without a bunch livestock living in the un-farmable mountains most of the year.

Guy haven't heard about fish or wild life.

On a cow-calf operation, which is where most beef production starts, a typical cow will graze and/or eat hay for about 12 years while breeding, then get slaughtered pretty much the day they're shipped because they aren't worth fattening at that age, they're just going to ground beef.

The culls (mid-life cows, failed to get pregnant) might see a couple months of their at least 36 month existence on grain before slaughter. Older ones might just go straight to slaughter.

Steers and cull heifers (which is most of what gets used for choice cuts like steak) typically see about 14 months typically on pasture and silage/grain being backgrounded on farm, then about 3 months being intensively fed in a feedlot at up to 80% ration before slaughter.

So, by far, the largest proportion of feeding of most cattle is by grazing or stored forage as part of the backgrounding process. It's only when they enter the feedlot that it becomes a grain-intense operation, and that part of the production is very short because feedlots don't make money feeding cows from calf-age to slaughter.

Also, many larger cow-calfs will also hold on to steers and push them, selling them as "fats", which sees much less intense feedlot experience. This isn't a huge proportion of the final months of most steers, but is still an appreciable proportion of the market.

The stockyards of Kansas aren't the typical beef production scenario. They're just very visible.

None of what I said was misinformation. Turning everyone vegan doesn’t resolve factory farming crops. Chemicals to ensure we can actually grow food, monocultures that are terrible for the environment, limitations of where things can grow.

I’m all for reducing meat consumption, but the utopian world where everyone is vegan has many hurdles to overcome that aren’t just magically resolved. Sure, right now we might be able to reduce land usage for farming, but that is one small aspect of commercial farming under capitalism.

How do people afford food when they don’t live in a place that can grow it? How do we ensure we can continue to grow food when we are so dependent on chemicals to do so? How does a developing country support agriculture without the huge subsidies currently required in developed nations? How do you educate 8 billion people on how to properly get the nutrients they need from new sources of food? How do convince society that GMOs aren’t bad?

These are rhetorical, but moving to veganism requires us to think about these types of things before claiming “but less farm land”

Veganism requires vastly less land and water resources

This too can cause misinformation.

Supporting a vegetarian diet requires less land and water resources.

Veganism requires the overuse of pesticides to the point that it makes the soil become unusable faster and hence needs higher treatment upkeep, essentially causing faster consumption of the limited energy resources we have.

You are spreading misinformation.

You were correct until here, but the land use food calculator will actually only be giving information pertaining to a normal (non-vegan) crop.

No, that's a myth. Growing meat is a lot more efficient.

Says the person who posted a meme showing sharks with human teeth as an argument against meat consumption.

That's...not what gills are for.

As the only basis, maybe. But they can be an indicator.

It's good for you. More people should.

Your behavior disinclines me to learn more, tbh.

Sounds like you need to spend less time online then :)

Pretty much. The idea that there's any species that is purely an herbivore just isn't born out in nature.

All generalizations are incorrect.

Pandas and gorillas have plenty of opportunity and are still obligate herbivores.

Yes. Because people like you lean ridiculously hard into one way or the other. We need a variety of food sources to sustainability receive all the nutrients we need to live. Eating a majority let alone an only meat or plant based diet is the complete wrong direction, and this is scientific fact. At least with plants it's possible to find substitutes, however some substitute's aren't nearly as sustainable as the vegan agenda tries to lead you to believe, Cough cough _almonds cough cough. May, Spirulina save us all.

Sugar and tobacco aren't meats. I assure you that heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune disorders would still exist even if no one ate meat.

Doubt it's the lefties, but it's for sure the vegans.

Maybe we evolved to use our brains to make and use tools. Maybe we're currently evolving to use our brains to eat fewer animals.

Just because we evolved a relatively recent ability to do something, doesn't mean that thing is necessarily in our best interest. As I said elsewhere in this post, we have some capacity for omnivory at a high health cost, but that doesn't change that our deeper roots have structured us for more plant-dominant lifestyles.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/

The reason we cook most meats is because capitalism dictates it should be produced the cheapest possible way, leading to contaminations and other nasty stuff in the meat that require cooking it. Even salmonella isn't present in raw chicken if the chicken grew in a clean environment eating clean food.