4 ms·

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consumin

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consuming meat is a choice, not a necessity.

deltaonefour 5y ago
A swiss army knife is designed to be used in many different ways. Just because you don't use all the ways doesn't mean it's not designed for it. You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie part is just the back up mechanism? Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.
- screamingninja 5y ago
  > Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice. Is that similar to you only acknowledging being designed to eat meat and denying half of your nature?
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    No I acknowledge both. So how am I denying my nature. Just FYI, I have no skin in this game. Call me evil call me denying my own nature, I'm just looking at this all as if I was a psychopath (I'm not).
  - inawarminister 5y ago
    There are people who do carnivory diet, eating 100% meat and organs for a while. They are mostly okay, some have their health better than their previous diet. Human body is awesome in our flexibility in seeking niches.
  - necovek 5y ago
    It seems you are getting too focused on "to eat meat": in precise terms, GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat".
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      >GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat". I never said that either. It seems you are artificially injecting extra words into my statements. My phrase "to eat meat" effectively addresses all your technicalities. That is my intent and my meaning.
      - necovek 5y ago
        I think I was supporting your original wording ;)
- _nothing 5y ago
  I already said this in a different comment, but the difference is that we were not designed while a Swiss army knife was. Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's supposed to be used in a certain way. Whether or not I use the corkscrew on my Swiss army knife doesn't change the fact that someone built the corkscrew for the purpose of opening corked bottles. The enzymes/features humans possess that enable us to consume meat were selected for because at some point in the history of our species they enabled our ancestors to survive while others without the related genes did not. This can change at any point, for any species. If we are no longer in an environment where eating meat confers a significant survival advantage then the fact that we evolved to be able to eat meat has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    > Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's _supposed_ to be used in a certain way. You could say "design" by natural selection which is MY primary intent. What is the appropriate word if not design? Your hands have a purpose even if they were not "designed." The purpose in this case is to grasp things. The purpose of the human body is then to eat meat and vegetables. The word design flows better than purpose. Take the two sentences: The human body was not designed to consume arsenic. The purpose of the human body is not to eat arsenic. See? Anyway let's not get too pedantic about this. I'm sure you get my intent despite the creationist technicality that the word "design" implies... I am clearly not implying THAT.
    - _nothing 5y ago
      I don't think you're a creationist - this is just a very common distinction in thinking about evolution that results in all sorts of illogical fallacies. This is my exact point: Your hands have no purpose. They evolved in a way that aided in survival. If someone is born mutated with their fingers fused together and then suddenly the entire earth floods and they find their solid hands help them swim better - were their hands evolved for the purpose of swimming? Were they designed? Is that human then "supposed to" swim? We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature? In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose, and they aren't leaving part of their purpose unfulfilled if they don't eat plastic and instead eat other substances they evolved to be able to eat.

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consuming meat is a choice, not a necessity.

deltaonefour 5y ago

A swiss army knife is designed to be used in many different ways. Just because you don't use all the ways doesn't mean it's not designed for it. You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie part is just the back up mechanism? Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.

screamingninja 5y ago
> Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice. Is that similar to you only acknowledging being designed to eat meat and denying half of your nature?
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  No I acknowledge both. So how am I denying my nature. Just FYI, I have no skin in this game. Call me evil call me denying my own nature, I'm just looking at this all as if I was a psychopath (I'm not).
- inawarminister 5y ago
  There are people who do carnivory diet, eating 100% meat and organs for a while. They are mostly okay, some have their health better than their previous diet. Human body is awesome in our flexibility in seeking niches.
- necovek 5y ago
  It seems you are getting too focused on "to eat meat": in precise terms, GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat".
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat". I never said that either. It seems you are artificially injecting extra words into my statements. My phrase "to eat meat" effectively addresses all your technicalities. That is my intent and my meaning.
    - necovek 5y ago
      I think I was supporting your original wording ;)
_nothing 5y ago
I already said this in a different comment, but the difference is that we were not designed while a Swiss army knife was. Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's supposed to be used in a certain way. Whether or not I use the corkscrew on my Swiss army knife doesn't change the fact that someone built the corkscrew for the purpose of opening corked bottles. The enzymes/features humans possess that enable us to consume meat were selected for because at some point in the history of our species they enabled our ancestors to survive while others without the related genes did not. This can change at any point, for any species. If we are no longer in an environment where eating meat confers a significant survival advantage then the fact that we evolved to be able to eat meat has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  > Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's _supposed_ to be used in a certain way. You could say "design" by natural selection which is MY primary intent. What is the appropriate word if not design? Your hands have a purpose even if they were not "designed." The purpose in this case is to grasp things. The purpose of the human body is then to eat meat and vegetables. The word design flows better than purpose. Take the two sentences: The human body was not designed to consume arsenic. The purpose of the human body is not to eat arsenic. See? Anyway let's not get too pedantic about this. I'm sure you get my intent despite the creationist technicality that the word "design" implies... I am clearly not implying THAT.
  - _nothing 5y ago
    I don't think you're a creationist - this is just a very common distinction in thinking about evolution that results in all sorts of illogical fallacies. This is my exact point: Your hands have no purpose. They evolved in a way that aided in survival. If someone is born mutated with their fingers fused together and then suddenly the entire earth floods and they find their solid hands help them swim better - were their hands evolved for the purpose of swimming? Were they designed? Is that human then "supposed to" swim? We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature? In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose, and they aren't leaving part of their purpose unfulfilled if they don't eat plastic and instead eat other substances they evolved to be able to eat.