Jump to content

predator


hilary wright
 Share

Recommended Posts

A question I frequently get asked is "if we shouldn't eat meat, then why is our facial structure that of a predator"? I do understand this to mean the placement of the eyes in the skull . . . directly in front. My response of choice is that I was blessed with free will and compassion . . . we all make our own choices. I choose not to support corrupt, flesh hungry corporate predators so as to bloat and poison my system, just as they bloat and poison our planet. It's not about structure, but about choice and love. I do admit that this is one of the more intelligent questions that I get. It is far more interesting than the usual "fuck off, sissy pants"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against referencing anatomy. One reason is that I have seen far too many vegans make spurious arguments based on it, which I think hurts animals. Many carnists like to read and will sooner or later hear one of those wrong points. They will walk away and tell their friends how vegans don't know what they are talking about.

 

In regards to the carnists telling you that only predators have eyes on the front of their head, this time they are wrong.

 

Many biologists believe that people/homo sapiens/a species of the great apes, evolved from tree dwelling creatures similar to modern day monkeys. Having eyes in the front of the head is a great adaption for living in trees. It makes it far easier to swing from tree to tree ( a forward motion ) and in general navigating around in trees.

Edited by beforewisdom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like to debate anything based on our anatomy. Evolutionary arguments are ridiculous...yes, we evolved as hunter-gatherers, but keep in mind that back in the day, we barely lived to adulthood. There was no heart disease, no diabetes...because nobody lived long enough to develop those conditions! So arguing that we evolved to survive on meat for 80+ years is completely untrue. All you can say is that we evolved to survive until puberty on an omnivorous diet. Hell, women died left right and centre from childbirth up until the past century. They didn't have to worry much about colon cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an intelligent question, it's a lazy justification/cop-out for eating meat. It's not about back then, it's about now.

 

1) No more need for meat for protein or b-vitamins.

2) We can live long lives without it.

3) Build muscle without it.

4) Raise children on the diet.

 

It's about necessity, empathy and compassion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need to just accept the fact humans are omnivores and can basically eat anything. We're garbage disposals. But just because you can eat something and survive OK doesn't mean you should.

 

It's morally, ecologically, and unhealthy with the quality of animal products these days to consume and use animal products.

 

Enough with the cop outs, do something because it's right. I don't need some knob telling me to do something because my eyes are front and center. Maybe they're their because it helps to see the bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the same conversation. Not all herbivores in nature have their eyes on their sides. And vice versa, not all omni/carnivores have their eyes in front. Take the eagles for example. Most apes are herbivores and are very closely related to us humans. Im not sure about our teeth but it seems they are not very carnivorous. Our digestive system is not optimized to deal with meat either. It is optimized for fruit and nuts. Yes, our digestive system can deal with coal as well but this doesn't mean it's good to eat coal So the biology argument is in our favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Next time you come across a meat eater, tell him/her to chase the chicken, kill it with his/her bare hands and eat it raw without any tools!

 

If the meat eater replies back telling you to live off a diet of tropical fruits and nuts in Italy without the aide of modern transportation his logic would be about as good and as faulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transportation brings me my fruit/nuts and brings the meat eater a live/dead chicken. Will the meat eater eat the meat raw? without modification?

 

Your point was that people can't eat meat without using technology. My point was that a carnist could turn that same logic on you. A raw foodist teenager in Italy living off of tropical fruits and nuts also can't eat without technology ( ships, trucks, refrigeration, etc.. ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...