Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

[Dastrn]

2 thoughts:

1. This shouldn't be illegal, but should be regulated like any other food animal if it's going to happen.

2. Obama said he wouldn't allow this to get votes from people who felt that way. Then he went back on his word because he doesn't need to say it to get votes any more.

Dude's a snake.

 

[M!nt]

I think horses do a better job as work animals and pets compared to animals that were mainly raised for consumption like pigs, cows, etc. I don't think they would taste much different from cows.

 

[Claire Diviner]

If by "most common source" you mean the source most often accessed by humans then you're right about meat [at least in from the 20th century onward] but what does it matter? You make it a question of convention, not logic. If the majority of people decided to let their countries be led by an authoritarian regime that wouldn't make it a logical choice all of a sudden either. Your point could easily be perfectly correct, don't get me wrong on that, I just don't see how it matters.

There are a lot of sources for protein outside of meat. There's milk and its products, there are pulses, there are nuts and there are eggs [although I don't think people who refuse to eat meat for moral reasons are morally eligible to eat eggs]. All of these products provide adequate amounts of protein with ease. It's perfectly possible for every human in the world to not have a single bite of meat throughout his entire life without suffering even the slightest nutrition-based deficiency symptom.

So, in other words, "yes". I know there are other sources of protein too, but how often do people go on a diet of only milk and peanuts. Hell, even insects are a form of meat. I'm still amazed at how vegans get protein; I know there's a protein source for them, I just don't know what that is. I digress though, as my point is that whether or not it matters, it is still the most common form of protein, though not necessarily the only source, and humans as a whole tend to use what's most common. I mean, it's not like McDonald's are serving McPeanut sandwiches, right?

Regarding this subject it's rather a question of how the animal is raised. Pigs, turkey, chicken and cows are being held on minimal space [especially in countries where animal rights are given no value such as Brazil, China or the USA] and the quality of the food they are given is beyond disgusting and doesn't represent the nutrition a fellow animal would choose in a natural environment in the slightest.
Factory farming of animals such as lamb, horse, rabbit or venison is a lot more difficult than that. It's often these kinds of meat that have a good reputation because unlike meat from factory farming they actually have a characteristic taste. The animals get to choose the nutrition by themselves most of the time and they are typically given more space [especially if they live in the wilderness].

Point made, though I still imagine horse meat to taste better than cow meat if both were raised in an equal fashion. I could be dead wrong though.

 

[PersonallyIPreferDair]

Well, now that it's legal...:rainbowdash:

Let the cupcake making begin

 

[Spelt]

2. Obama said he wouldn't allow this to get votes from people who felt that way. Then he went back on his word because he doesn't need to say it to get votes any more.

You mean, just like every single person in politics before him?

 

[frotaz37]

So, in other words, "yes". I know there are other sources of protein too, but how often do people go on a diet of only milk and peanuts. Hell, even insects are a form of meat. I'm still amazed at how vegans get protein; I know there's a protein source for them, I just don't know what that is. I digress though, as my point is that whether or not it matters, it is still the most common form of protein, though not necessarily the only source, and humans as a whole tend to use what's most common. I mean, it's not like McDonald's are serving McPeanut sandwiches, right?

It's not the most common form of protein. Everything has protein. Nuts, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains. It all has protein, in fact most plant foods have more protein per calorie than meat does. This whole "vegans not getting protein" myth just stems from people trying desperately to find something wrong with being vegan and conditioning by the meat and dairy industry, which goes hand in hand with poor education. All anyone has to do is eat enough food and he/she will get enough protein.

The only reason meat is considered a "good source of protein" is because it has a ridiculously high amount of protein per calorie. This is great for convenience, but our bodies aren't built to process excess amounts of protein and it can cause health problems. Meat also has no carbohydrates, our bodies main source of fuel. It's basically empty filler food, with no real nutritional value and it really helps to explain why America is so unhealthy. Go into any generic supermarket and 90% percent of the products contain meat and cheese. I guess now there will be horse meat and cheese products.

Grosssss.

 

[Zook]

There are a lot of sources for protein outside of meat. There's milk and its products, there are pulses, there are nuts and there are eggs [although I don't think people who refuse to eat meat for moral reasons are morally eligible to eat eggs]. All of these products provide adequate amounts of protein with ease. It's perfectly possible for every human in the world to not have a single bite of meat throughout his entire life without suffering even the slightest nutrition-based deficiency symptom.

What if they raise their chickens themselves? I've been debating on whether or not to go veggie, and I decided that if I do, eggs would be okay as long as I know where they came from and the chickens were raised humanely.

 

[NTA]

I hear scientists are trying to bring Woolly Mammoths back. I wonder how they taste?

 

[Claire Diviner]

It's not the most common form of protein. Everything has protein. Nuts, beans, vegetables, fruits, grains. It all has protein, in fact most plant foods have more protein per calorie than meat does. This whole "vegans not getting protein" myth just stems from people trying desperately to find something wrong with being vegan and conditioning by the meat and dairy industry, which goes hand in hand with poor education. All anyone has to do is eat enough food and he/she will get enough protein.

The only reason meat is considered a "good source of protein" is because it has a ridiculously high amount of protein per calorie. This is great for convenience, but our bodies aren't built to process excess amounts of protein and it can cause health problems. Meat also has no carbohydrates, our bodies main source of fuel. It's basically empty filler food, with no real nutritional value and it really helps to explain why America is so unhealthy. Go into any generic supermarket and 90% percent of the products contain meat and cheese. I guess now there will be horse meat and cheese products.

Grosssss.

So you're saying eating meat is more akin to a liability? Please. Also, your "protein per calorie" thing seems to be inconsistent. You mention plant foods having more protein than most meats, yet mention meat having a ridiculous amount per calorie in your second paragraph. Regardless of what you say, it will not stop more than half the world's population from eating meat; the food we as humans have been consuming since time immemorial.

I hear scientists are trying to bring Woolly Mammoths back. I wonder how they taste?

I've read about some Japanese scientists having the DNA needed to clone mammoths. I'm guessing they never saw Jurassic Park. Still, mammoth meat must be pretty interesting. Hell, our ancestors must've liked it... that, or they ate it out of necessity for survival. Who knows?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Does humanity have a future as an evolving species if our so called leaders are so shady?

I'm pretty certain scientists believe squid are going to be the dominate species on earth one day

They also believe they were the dominate species in the distant past

 

[Zook]

Sol Diviner, how much protein do you think the typical human needs per day?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Sol Diviner, how much protein do you think the typical human needs per day?

Depends on the person. If they're a power lifter, then they're gonna need a lot. If they're the average mook, then probably along the lines of maybe 20g in a day... That's just my estimate.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Power lifter's aren't exactly the epitome of human physique they are made out to be. There bodies are more for show than functional, though I'm not saying they aren't able to function.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Power lifter's aren't exactly the epitome of human physique they are made out to be. There bodies are more for show than functional, though I'm not saying they aren't able to function.

Well, yeah, but the point is, they're muscles are much bigger than the average person, and if they want to maintain those muscles and - by extension - their strength, they're gonna need more protein than normal. Of course, us average folk don't need anywhere near that much. Still, empty filler or not, I'm still a meat guy; I'm a simple guy, with simple needs.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Well, yeah, but the point is, they're muscles are much bigger than the average person, and if they want to maintain those muscles and - by extension - their strength, they're gonna need more protein than normal. Of course, us average folk don't need anywhere near that much. Still, empty filler or not, I'm still a meat guy; I'm a simple guy, with simple needs.

Maintaining that kind of muscle isn't a necessity, and they probably are less healthy (In relative) because of it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Obama should legalize heroin already...

EDIT: On the protein intake:
We already take wayyyy too much protein, and power lifters too, they get more than enough protein as it is.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Makes me wonder how much protein horse meat contains... or how healthy it is when compared to beef.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

For some reason, it just doesn't sound too tasty to me...

Maybe because horse is cliched as dog food

 

[Claire Diviner]

For some reason, it just doesn't sound too tasty to me...

Maybe because horse is cliched as dog food

Coincidentally, I like dog food. I'm not trolling either.

 

[frotaz37]

So you're saying eating meat is more akin to a liability? Please. Also, your "protein per calorie" thing seems to be inconsistent. You mention plant foods having more protein than most meats, yet mention meat having a ridiculous amount per calorie in your second paragraph. Regardless of what you say, it will not stop more than half the world's population from eating meat; the food we as humans have been consuming since time immemorial.

Meat is unhealthy. It's no secret.

And yeah I messed up with my words, sorry about that. Protein per calorie is simple though. Compare 100 calories of spinach to 100 calories of meat. The spinach has more protein. However meat has a huge huge huge amount of calories so most people think it's the best source of protein.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Coincidentally, I like dog food. I'm not trolling either.

you can't just go and say "i straight up like dog food" and not follow up with an elaboration

such as why did you initially taste the dog food in order to develop a taste for it and also why would you tell someone such a thing? that's one of those things that you just don't admit to people, especially without someone's invocation.

though, honestly, i guess it's not that different than a Hungry Man Pot Roast is it

 

[Spelt]

Meat is unhealthy. It's no secret.

And yeah I messed up with my words, sorry about that. Protein per calorie is simple though. Compare 100 calories of spinach to 100 calories of meat. The spinach has more protein. However meat has a huge huge huge amount of calories so most people think it's the best source of protein.

More like meat is unhealthy if eaten in large quantities, just like everything else.

 

[frotaz37]

It's more like it's unhealthy if it's a significant % of the food you eat. Saying it's just like everything else when eaten in abundance is not true. Eating large quantities of fruits and vegetables and grains is never going to be unhealthy unless you're being extreme and eating stupidly large amounts. So I mean yeah you can get extreme... Obviously if a person eats too much of anything they can die. But that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I had the most delicious steak the other day.

It was Cajun spiced, medium rare. It was juicy and delicious

 

[Luigitoilet]

I've always wanted to eat duck, never had the money to throw down for it or the inclination to cook one though. Sol Diviner, are those duck jerky dog treats worth trying?

 

[Spelt]

It's more like it's unhealthy if it's a significant % of the food you eat. Saying it's just like everything else when eaten in abundance is not true. Eating large quantities of fruits and vegetables and grains is never going to be unhealthy unless you're being extreme and eating stupidly large amounts. So I mean yeah you can get extreme... Obviously if a person eats too much of anything they can die. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Yeah what you are talking about is an extremely biased and narrow viewpoint and trying to derail that from something that is already pretty much common knowledge.

 

[Glöwworm]

Obama should legalize heroin already...

Not sure if serious but here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE

 

[Luigitoilet]

I agree with Ron Paul there (and the second guy). Drug abuse should be treated as a health issue more than criminal issue.

...that's completely off topic and is something that could fill another thread.

 

[frotaz37]

Yeah what you are talking about is an extremely biased and narrow viewpoint and trying to derail that from something that is already pretty much common knowledge.

I don't see how anything I'm saying involves an extremely biased and narrow viewpoint.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

What if they raise their chickens themselves? I've been debating on whether or not to go veggie, and I decided that if I do, eggs would be okay as long as I know where they came from and the chickens were raised humanely.

To be fair, I need to retract my stances on eggs because I'm ignorant in that regard. I tend to assume that using eggs for human consumption requites the death of a chick and therefore it's morally on the same level to eat an egg and to eat meat. But I don't actually know that. For all I know it might be possible to produce edible eggs that simply don't hatch anything, which puts eating an egg on a different level than eating meat. If that was the case there wouldn't be a contradiction between not eating meat for moral reasons and eating eggs at the same time. But yeah, whether that's the case or not I can't tell.

I've read about some Japanese scientists having the DNA needed to clone mammoths. I'm guessing they never saw Jurassic Park. Still, mammoth meat must be pretty interesting. Hell, our ancestors must've liked it... that, or they ate it out of necessity for survival. Who knows?

Note that the human body is in no way fit for meat consumption as it naturally lacks the tools to adequately obtain or to digest meat. The most logical conclusion is that humans must have started to eat meat out of necessity. During an Ice Age you can't just wander around and pluck your food from the ground or off the trees - you have to resort to other options.

But even after an assumed 20.000 years of meat consumption the human body never showed any more signs of evolutionary adaption than two more sharpened front teeth. The rest of the human digestion is identical to "pure" herbivores. And in either case, the "necessity" aspect of meat as part of our nutrition has become completely superfluous as of now anyway.

So you're saying eating meat is more akin to a liability?

More like meat is unhealthy if eaten in large quantities, just like everything else.

It's always the quantity that makes things a liability. Even water can be dangerous if there's a stark disproportion between water and the salts in your body. It's not a question of whether it's a liability or not but how likely it is to become a liability in the first place. In regards to the human body meat has the potential to become a rather huge liability, whereas there's no realistic way for herbal food to ever become a problem. Even if you could somehow die or get sick because of herbal nutrition the amount of food required would have to be way beyond anything a human could physically eat. That's most certainly not the case with meat.

 

[Dre89]

Note that the human body is in no way fit for meat consumption as it naturally lacks the tools to adequately obtain or to digest meat. The most logical conclusion is that humans must have started to eat meat out of necessity. During an Ice Age you can't just wander around and pluck your food from the ground or off the trees - you have to resort to other options.

But even after an assumed 20.000 years of meat consumption the human body never showed any more signs of evolutionary adaption than two more sharpened front teeth. The rest of the human digestion is identical to "pure" herbivores. And in either case, the "necessity" aspect of meat as part of our nutrition has become completely superfluous as of now anyway.

I know this may derail the thread, but if you're going to play the evolution card, I'm going to have to disagree with you because humans have evolved (or are evolving) to be predators.

Firstly, we have the eyes of predators. Predators normally have eyes that are close to each other (like we do) so we can focus in on our prey. Prey generally have eyes further apart, or on different sides of the head, so that they can observe their surroundings.

We don't have very specialised teeth, but we don't need them because we have very sophisticated limbs which help when subduing and eating prey. If you look at the animals with the most specialised teeth (herbivore or carnivore) they often have limbs which don't aid them in the comsunption of their food (cows and crocodiles are two good examples respectively).

We don't seem to have many herbivore adaptions either. It was my understanding that many herbivores had something like four stomachs. Herbivores usually have heads that are close to the ground for grazing (cattle and ungulants), elevated heads to reach tree vegetation (giraffes and certain herbivore dinosaurs, or are tree/climing based (other primates). Humans don't have adaptions that specialise in any of these.

I'm not saying we've evolved to become pure, specialised carnivores. We're omnivores and insectivores, like most new kingdom apes, except unlike most of them we're not tree based so our diet isn't necessarily supposed to be vegetation dominated.

 

[Dre89]

Gheb- It's my understanding that chickens will stay lay eggs even if not fertilized by sperm. They won't hatch obviously.

I know this may derail the thread, but if you're going to play the evolution card, I'm going to have to disagree with you because humans have evolved (or are evolving) to be predators.

Firstly, we have the eyes of predators. Predators normally have eyes that are close to each other (like we do) so we can focus in on our prey. Prey generally have eyes further apart, or on different sides of the head, so that they can observe their surroundings.

We don't have very specialised teeth, but we don't need them because we have very sophisticated limbs which help when subduing and eating prey. If you look at the animals with the most specialised teeth (herbivore or carnivore) they often have limbs which don't aid them in the comsunption of their food (cows and crocodiles are two good examples respectively).

We don't seem to have many herbivore adaptions either. It was my understanding that many herbivores had something like four stomachs. Herbivores usually have heads that are close to the ground for grazing (cattle and ungulants), elevated heads to reach tree vegetation (giraffes and certain herbivore dinosaurs), or are tree/climing based (other primates). Humans don't have adaptions that specialise in any of these.
I'm not saying we've evolved to become pure, specialised carnivores. We're omnivores and insectivores, like most new kingdom apes, except unlike most of them we're not tree based so our diet isn't necessarily supposed to be vegetation dominated.

 

[UltiMario]

And we all learn to be an average society and not hold **** like horses as gods like other places place cows or pigs.

It seriously doesn't ****ing matter people

 

[Dre89]

It's pretty stupid when people think it's wrong to kill horses, but it's ok to kill cows and pigs etc. They've just been conditioned by their culture.

In fact, most people who are pro animal rights have been conditioned by their urban culture where they're blinded from nature, where animals kills each other all the time. The funny thing is, the only reason why we now live in a society where it's possible to actually protect animals, and have diets not consisting of meat is because we destroyed animals and their habitats to make these urban societies.

I don't have a problem with horse consumption, as long as there is still enough horses to use for other means.

 

[frotaz37]

I know this may derail the thread, but if you're going to play the evolution card, I'm going to have to disagree with you because humans have evolved (or are evolving) to be predators.

You can't possibly know what humans are evolving into in this regard -.-

Firstly, we have the eyes of predators. Predators normally have eyes that are close to each other (like we do) so we can focus in on our prey. Prey generally have eyes further apart, or on different sides of the head, so that they can observe their surroundings.

Forward facing eyes are common in primates. Also, you can see certain other herbivores with forward facing eyes, like the koala bear. Either way, one similarity between humans and other carnivores doesn't seal the deal, especially when you look at other comparisons:

Facial Muscles
Carnivore: Reduced to allowed wide mouth gape.
Herbivore: Well developed.
Human: Well developed.

Jaw Type
Carnivore: Angle not expanded.
Herbivore: Expanded angle.
Human: Expanded angle.

Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore: On the same plane as the molar teeth.
Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars.
Human: Above the plane of the molars.

Jaw Motion
Carnivore: No side to side movement.
Herbivore: Good side to side moment.
Human: Good side to side movement.

Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore: Temporalis.
Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids.
Human: Masseter and pterygoids.

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size.
Carnivore: Large.
Herbivore: Small.
Human: Small.

Teeth: Incisors
Carnivore: Short and pointed.
Herbivore: Broad and flattened.
Herbivore: Broad and flattened.

Teeth: Canines
Carnivore: Long, sharp, and curved.
Herbivore: Dull and short.
Human: Dull and short.

Teeth: Molars
Carnivore: Sharp and jagged.
Herbivore: Flattened with cusps.
Human: Flattened with cusps.

Chewing
Carnivore: None. Swallows food whole.
Herbivore: Extensive chewing required.
Human: Extensive chewing required.

Saliva
Carnivore: No digestive enzymes.
Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes.
Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes.

Stomach Acidity
Carnivore: Less than or equal to ph1.
Herbivore: Around ph4 to 5.
Human: Around ph4 to 5.

Stomach Capacity
Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive track.
Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive track.
Human: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive track.

Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore: 3 to 6 times the body length.
Herbivore: 10 to 12+ times the body length.
Human: 10 to 11 times the body length.

Colon
Carnivore: Simple, short, and smooth. No fermentation.
Herbivore: Long, complex, may be sacculated.
Human: Long, complex, sacculated.

Liver
Carnivore: Can detoxify Vitamin A.
Herbivore: Cannot detoxify Vitamin A.
Human: Cannot detoxify Vitamin A.

Kidney
Carnivore: Very concentrated urine.
Herbivore: Mildly concentrated urine.
Human: Mildly concentrated urine.

Nails
Carnivore: Sharp claws.
Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves.
Humans: Flattened nails.

Thermostasis
Carnivore: Hyperventilation
Herbivore: Perspiration
Human: Perspiration


There are more too, including average time spent sleeping per night. Humans again fit in with other herbivores when it comes to hours spent sleeping per day, which is much less than most carnivores. Also, I should mention that TRUE omnivores (animals that eat both meat and vegetation as a SIGNIFICANT part of their diet) often tend to have a lot more in common with carnivores than herbivores. Bears and racoons are a good example of this. Claws, sharp teeth, no horizontal jaw movement, ect.

We don't have very specialised teeth, but we don't need them because we have very sophisticated limbs which help when subduing and eating prey. If you look at the animals with the most specialised teeth (herbivore or carnivore) they often have limbs which don't aid them in the comsunption of their food (cows and crocodiles are two good examples respectively).

Are you suggesting a human being could subdue an animal with just his/her limbs? Most animals are too fast and/or too strong. I'm not gonna say I know what our limbs are "intended" for, but if they are the way they are to help us subdue prey, we probably got the worst card evolution has handed any species in the history of the world.

We don't seem to have many herbivore adaptions either. It was my understanding that many herbivores had something like four stomachs. Herbivores usually have heads that are close to the ground for grazing (cattle and ungulants), elevated heads to reach tree vegetation (giraffes and certain herbivore dinosaurs, or are tree/climing based (other primates). Humans don't have adaptions that specialise in any of these.

First of all, the great apes tend to be more terrestrial and less tree dwelling, and they're still herbivores. Not to mention that a huge amount of vegetation doesn't even come from trees so I don't even know what you're getting at.

Second, saying that humans aren't like ungulates is not really going to help you convince anyone of anything. Think about it...you can't say say "humans are not herbivores because ungulates are herbivores and humans don't share a few of their traits". There's a serious gap in logic there...plus like I showed earlier, we have a lot more in common with them than you might think. Still, here's a short list of animals that go against your logic. I'm sure there are countless more, these are just a few basic non ungulate herbivore mammals off the top of my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant

I'm not saying we've evolved to become pure, specialised carnivores. We're omnivores and insectivores, like most new kingdom apes, except unlike most of them we're not tree based so our diet isn't necessarily supposed to be vegetation dominated.

Except all the apes that are our closest relatives are primarily herbivores, NOT omnivores. Their diets are 99%+ plant based foods. Yes they DO eat other animals sometimes but that doesn't make them omnivores when talking from a purely anatomical or taxonomical perspective. I could drink bleach, would that make me a bleachivore? No, it would make me an herbivore who decided to drink bleach. You know it's like...cows eat insects that are on the grass they eat. Does that make them omnivores? No, they're herbivores who happen to be eating bugs.

At the end of the day, if you still don't want to believe that humans are herbivores, look at the data that shows how people who eat meat are MUCH more likely to develop various diseases and other medical conditions. We can argue all day about what humans are naturally designed to eat, but all the data I've ever seen shows that people who don't eat meat live longer, healthier lives with a much lower risk of all types of diseases, even when their diet choices have nothing to do with them trying to be healthier. Quite frankly, that should be enough for anyone.

 

[Dre89]

I stand corrected.

 

[Teran]

I once heard this term called omnivore where creatures basically get a hold of whatever they can but it looks like it's gone out of fashion.

We are "primarily" herbivorous because we hardly have the natural physical prowess to hunt. Thing is though, we are equipped to digest and enjoy meat, just like chimps. Chimps in fact go out of their way to hunt and get some meat, which seems to be somewhat of a delicacy to them. I suppose it was the same to us in the beginning, but since we've been able to get our hands on it far more easily since, I suppose we've started eating far more than we initially did.

Still I don't see the point of arguing about it although

Males have a superior sense of spacial awareness, this is a characteristic of hunting, so to say we're basically eating meat as some *******isation against nature is a ***** of a stretch.

 

[frotaz37]

I once heard this term called omnivore where creatures basically get a hold of whatever they can but it looks like it's gone out of fashion.

I already said this, but omnivores, as in animals who eat both meat and vegetation as a significant part of their diet are a lot more like carnivores than herbivores.

We are "primarily" herbivorous because we hardly have the natural physical prowess to hunt. Thing is though, we are equipped to digest and enjoy meat, just like chimps. Chimps in fact go out of their way to hunt and get some meat, which seems to be somewhat of a delicacy to them. I suppose it was the same to us in the beginning, but since we've been able to get our hands on it far more easily since, I suppose we've started eating far more than we initially did.

Every animal can digest meat. That doesn't make them equipped to properly digest it. Our insides simply are not designed to do so. Ever wonder why colon cancer, the most common cancer among humans, is most prevalent in developed countries aka countries that produce and consume the most meat and dairy products?

Males have a superior sense of spacial awareness, this is a characteristic of hunting, so to say we're basically eating meat as some *******isation against nature is a ***** of a stretch.

Why do you think you know this? "This is a characterization of hunting" how do you know? Are you an expert on evolution and biology? How do you know that other herbivores don't share this trait?

...

The thing is, even if humans eating meat isn't a *******ization of nature, it's still terrible for a persons health, which is much more important than whether or not it's "natural".

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Frotaz stealin' ma thunder -.-

And yes, what he said about colon cancer is indeed correct. The reason for it is that humans are not adequately equipped to digest meat. A carnivore's digestion is centered around obtaining the necessary nutrients and then secreting the meat as fast as possible, otherwise the raw meat would start to rot during the digestion and cause serious health problems. That can happen with the digestion of meat in the human intestine [or other herbivores]: The meat - even if it's not raw anymore - can start to rot and cause health problems; cancer being the most drastic one of them. This is based on the drastically different length of the intestines; herbivore's [including human's] having between two or three times the length of the carnivore's means that the meat takes a lot more time to digest within our bodies, making it possible for meat to rot during our digestion and cause damage.

 

[Teran]

I already said this, but omnivores, as in animals who eat both meat and vegetation as a significant part of their diet are a lot more like carnivores than herbivores.

Pigs and hippos don't seem so carnivorous.

Every animal can digest meat. That doesn't make them equipped to properly digest it. Our insides simply are not designed to do so. Ever wonder why colon cancer, the most common cancer among humans, is most prevalent in developed countries aka countries that produce and consume the most meat and dairy products?

Cancer is most prevalent in developed countries period. Cancer is a developed word disease, so naturally colon cancer is more prevalent, just like every other form.

Why do you think you know this? "This is a characterization of hunting" how do you know? Are you an expert on evolution and biology? How do you know that other herbivores don't share this trait?

Because I'm a 3rd year natural sciences major? \o_o/

The thing is, even if humans eating meat isn't a *******ization of nature, it's still terrible for a persons health, which is much more important than whether or not it's "natural".

Calling things terrible for your health is somewhat tenuous. Meat as a primary dietary source with little to no other intake is bad, but the same could be said of anything. We still live longer and exhibit superior physical health to generations past, a large part of this being the vast availability of different forms of food. Meat is a source of protein and vitamins. Gorging yourself on it is obviously not going to do any wonders, just like how intaking lots of vitamin A will kill you. Maintaining the biochemical balance in your body is the important thing, and one can still eat meat and do so.

We don't have full on carnivorous digestive traits because we're not equipped to survive solely on meat, that doesn't mean we can't eat it. Being alive is bad for our health, really it is, every second we stay alive, free radical chain reactions occur in our body and we lose another few seconds of life.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to have a cigarette.