Just Carl

supervegme:

positively-losing:

unrulyboy:

“Here’s a test you can try at home: put a two-year-old in a playpen with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, you’ve got a carnivore.”

~Dan Piraro

…I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that considering a 1 year old can do things…

It’s about natural instinct. A wolf or other carnivorous animal would eat the rabbit, whereas the human, without societal pressure, would not eat the rabbit.

Let’s have a look at this logic;

Put the same kid in playpen with an apple, a rabbit, and a small marble. The child would almost certainly eat the marble.

CONCLUSION: It’s natural to eat marbles.

This is the worst anti-meat argument I’ve ever seen.

What’s more “natural”; continuing to eat meat like humans have done since our existence, or deciding to not eat meat because of relatively newly found “morals” (and I use the term loosely)?

Nobody in their right mind thinks humans “should be” carnivores or are “naturally” carnivores. We’re omnivores - there’s a difference. So says history, science, human nature, whatever you want to call it.

There are several reasons to not eat meat; “It’s not natural” isn’t one of them.

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

positively-losing:

unrulyboy:

“Here’s a test you can try at home: put a two-year-old in a playpen with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, you’ve got a carnivore.”

~Dan Piraro

…I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that considering a 1 year old can do things…

It’s about natural instinct. A wolf or other carnivorous animal would eat the rabbit, whereas the human, without societal pressure, would not eat the rabbit.

Let’s have a look at this logic;

Put the same kid in playpen with an apple, a rabbit, and a small marble. The child would almost certainly eat the marble.

CONCLUSION: It’s natural to eat marbles.

This is the worst anti-meat argument I’ve ever seen.

What’s more “natural”; continuing to eat meat like humans have done since our existence, or deciding to not eat meat because of relatively newly found “morals” (and I use the term loosely)?

Nobody in their right mind thinks humans “should be” carnivores or are “naturally” carnivores. We’re omnivores - there’s a difference. So says history, science, human nature, whatever you want to call it.

There are several reasons to not eat meat; “It’s not natural” isn’t one of them.

…where do marbles appear in nature.

…where do marbles appear in nature. 

A stone. A piece of mud. A dead fly. Rat faeces.

The particular item is irrelevant, the child puts it in his/her mouth if it’s small enough. That’s what toddlers do. Whether it’s a marble or a stone, the logic behind the argument is flawed on several levels.

To suggest that a it’s unnatural to eat meat because a child would eat an apple instead of a live rabbit is hilarious. Is the two year old supposed to kill, skin, de-bowel and de-bone the rabbit before serving it in a nice broth? Since when were the actions of a 2 year old synonymous with what’s natural for a human adult to do? I stopped dribbling, crying, and shitting myself a long time ago… am I unnatural because I don’t act like a baby?

All you have to do is replace the actual rabbit with a small edible slice of meat… something that’s actually edible. It would eat it in a flash. Does that mean it’s “natural” to eat meat? Hell no… it just proves kids eat what’s put in front of them - which is the point that defeats the entire argument.

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

positively-losing:

unrulyboy:

“Here’s a test you can try at home: put a two-year-old in a playpen with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, you’ve got a carnivore.”

~Dan Piraro

…I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that considering a 1 year old can do things…

It’s about natural instinct. A wolf or other carnivorous animal would eat the rabbit, whereas the human, without societal pressure, would not eat the rabbit.

Let’s have a look at this logic;

Put the same kid in playpen with an apple, a rabbit, and a small marble. The child would almost certainly eat the marble.

CONCLUSION: It’s natural to eat marbles.

This is the worst anti-meat argument I’ve ever seen.

What’s more “natural”; continuing to eat meat like humans have done since our existence, or deciding to not eat meat because of relatively newly found “morals” (and I use the term loosely)?

Nobody in their right mind thinks humans “should be” carnivores or are “naturally” carnivores. We’re omnivores - there’s a difference. So says history, science, human nature, whatever you want to call it.

There are several reasons to not eat meat; “It’s not natural” isn’t one of them.

…where do marbles appear in nature.

…where do marbles appear in nature. 

A stone. A piece of mud. A dead fly. Rat faeces.

The particular item is irrelevant, the child puts it in his/her mouth if it’s small enough. That’s what toddlers do. Whether it’s a marble or a stone, the logic behind the argument is flawed on several levels.

To suggest that a it’s unnatural to eat meat because a child would eat an apple instead of a live rabbit is hilarious. Is the two year old supposed to kill, skin, de-bowel and de-bone the rabbit before serving it in a nice broth? Since when were the actions of a 2 year old synonymous with what’s natural for a human adult to do? I stopped dribbling, crying, and shitting myself a long time ago… am I unnatural because I don’t act like a baby?

All you have to do is replace the actual rabbit with a small edible slice of meat… something that’s actually edible. It would eat it in a flash. Does that mean it’s “natural” to eat meat? Hell no… it just proves kids eat what’s put in front of them - which is the point that defeats the entire argument.

The point is that other, obviously carnivorous animals, would eat the animal even at a young age. They have claws, ripping teeth, beaks, what have you. Humans aren’t meant to be carnivores. A baby shows a human with no knives, spears, etc. A human baby would not kill a rabbit.

The point is that other, obviously carnivorous animals, would eat the animal even at a young age. They have claws, ripping teeth, beaks, what have you. Humans aren’t meant to be carnivores. A baby shows a human with no knives, spears, etc. A human baby would not kill a rabbit.

A human baby also can’t walk at first. Or speak. Or have sex. When they grow up and learn to do these things… aren’t they natural? Just because you have to learn something, or follow lessons/experiences from adults, that doesn’t make it unnatural.

Tons of baby animals aren’t born with the devices required to hunt, kill, etc. Their parents do all that, and in many cases, even chew/break up their food for them. Then, after that, after they have learned to do these things and developed sufficiently, they do it for themselves. Just like our earliest ancestors had to learn to hunt. We wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for that.

The only difference is that we, for no apparent reason, put ourselves on pedestals, as if we’re “above” the animals and have to act differently to them. We’re not. We are animals. Some animals just happen to be omnivores… we’re one of them.

Our earliest forms, like the Homo Habilis from over 2 million years ago ate meat. The fact that we still eat meat is sticking to nature, and if anything, going against that and becoming ”sophisticated” by being picky about what we eat is the unnatural thing.

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

carlconnor:

supervegme:

positively-losing:

unrulyboy:

“Here’s a test you can try at home: put a two-year-old in a playpen with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, you’ve got a carnivore.”

~Dan Piraro

…I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that considering a 1 year old can do things…

It’s about natural instinct. A wolf or other carnivorous animal would eat the rabbit, whereas the human, without societal pressure, would not eat the rabbit.

Let’s have a look at this logic;

Put the same kid in playpen with an apple, a rabbit, and a small marble. The child would almost certainly eat the marble.

CONCLUSION: It’s natural to eat marbles.

This is the worst anti-meat argument I’ve ever seen.

What’s more “natural”; continuing to eat meat like humans have done since our existence, or deciding to not eat meat because of relatively newly found “morals” (and I use the term loosely)?

Nobody in their right mind thinks humans “should be” carnivores or are “naturally” carnivores. We’re omnivores - there’s a difference. So says history, science, human nature, whatever you want to call it.

There are several reasons to not eat meat; “It’s not natural” isn’t one of them.

…where do marbles appear in nature.

…where do marbles appear in nature. 

A stone. A piece of mud. A dead fly. Rat faeces.

The particular item is irrelevant, the child puts it in his/her mouth if it’s small enough. That’s what toddlers do. Whether it’s a marble or a stone, the logic behind the argument is flawed on several levels.

To suggest that a it’s unnatural to eat meat because a child would eat an apple instead of a live rabbit is hilarious. Is the two year old supposed to kill, skin, de-bowel and de-bone the rabbit before serving it in a nice broth? Since when were the actions of a 2 year old synonymous with what’s natural for a human adult to do? I stopped dribbling, crying, and shitting myself a long time ago… am I unnatural because I don’t act like a baby?

All you have to do is replace the actual rabbit with a small edible slice of meat… something that’s actually edible. It would eat it in a flash. Does that mean it’s “natural” to eat meat? Hell no… it just proves kids eat what’s put in front of them - which is the point that defeats the entire argument.

The point is that other, obviously carnivorous animals, would eat the animal even at a young age. They have claws, ripping teeth, beaks, what have you. Humans aren’t meant to be carnivores. A baby shows a human with no knives, spears, etc. A human baby would not kill a rabbit.

The point is that other, obviously carnivorous animals, would eat the animal even at a young age. They have claws, ripping teeth, beaks, what have you. Humans aren’t meant to be carnivores. A baby shows a human with no knives, spears, etc. A human baby would not kill a rabbit.

A human baby also can’t walk at first. Or speak. Or have sex. When they grow up and learn to do these things… aren’t they natural? Just because you have to learn something, or follow lessons/experiences from adults, that doesn’t make it unnatural.

Tons of baby animals aren’t born with the devices required to hunt, kill, etc. Their parents do all that, and in many cases, even chew/break up their food for them. Then, after that, after they have learned to do these things, they do it for themselves. Just like our earliest ancestors had to learn to hunt. We wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for that.

The only difference is that we, for no apparent reason, put ourselves on pedestals, as if we’re “above” the animals and have to act differently to them. We’re not. We are animals. Some animals just happen to be omnivores… we’re one of them.

Our earliest forms, like the Homo Habilis from over 2 million years ago ate meat. The fact that we still eat meat is sticking to nature, and if anything, going against that and becoming ”sophisticated” by being picky about what we eat is the unnatural thing.

First: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Second: Even if eating meat was “natural”, eating antibiotic stuffed, corn/feces/other animal-eating farm animals produced in a factory is NOT natural.

Linking me to a vegetarian website is about as convincing as a Mormon quoting the bible. They pick a few tidbits of info that back up their agenda, and ignore everything else. That’s not science.

The point about antibiotics and factories is fine. I totally agree that that’s not natural. But that was never the point. The argument was “eating meat is not natural”, not “eating X-type of meat”… it was speaking universally of all meats - and this, as is proven by our earliest natural form, is untrue.

If you’re careful about what you eat, there are plenty of ways to eat meat naturally, without all the factory nonsense.