GO VEGAN

[Anonymous No.11256220]

Biologically speaking, humans should not eat meat. Our physiology is not designed for the consumption or metabolism of animals flesh and these processes have frequently been correlated with detrimental health effects.
>Checkmate meat fatties.

[Anonymous No.11256227]

>>11256220
This changes everything ....

[Anonymous No.11256228]

None of us are designed for anything.

[Anonymous No.11256237]

>>11256220
>correlation = causation
This is your brain on veganism

[Anonymous No.11256242]

>>11256228
Did your mom drop you on your head several hundred times or were you actually born that stupid?

[Anonymous No.11256266]

>>11256237
How about you ask your stepdad to throw a baseball at your face for a half hour. Get back to us when you're done and let me know if that stinging in your face correlated with the ball or if you want to continue the experiment until you're satisfied with determining a "causation."

[Anonymous No.11256268]

>>11256242
Oh good grief, another rude and uncouth vegan than wants us to listen to them and then calls people that disagree with what they say inappropriate names. Stop being a child. Learn to communicate properly without insulting others and maybe people will be more receptive to your vegan pontificating. Let people live and make their own choices. Grow up please. Bye

[Anonymous No.11256279]

>>11256268
>youre right but youre a big vegan bully who called me names!!! Im telling!!!

[Anonymous No.11256301]

POST FRIDGE

[Anonymous No.11256305]

>>11256220
i like the spelling errors on your unsourced graph. it really helps give it that vegan touch.

[Anonymous No.11256312]

>>11256220
I'm not a woman though

[Anonymous No.11256315]

>>11256220
It's all another feminist plot to onces again undervalue the role of men in society. Prehistorically we would go out and risk our lives to bring that meat back. Today we're being told that even that was a shitty thing to do. Well, fuck you. Fuck you. I'm going my own way.

[Anonymous No.11256319]

>>11256305
I'm not OP but I'm wondering what you think is spelled wrong.
And please don't say "caput" without looking it up first.

[Anonymous No.11256325]

name 1
one
ONE herbivore that can not digest cellulose
I'll wait

[Anonymous No.11256330]

>>11256319
I would guess Yug and Ddr.

[Anonymous No.11256334]

>>11256305
>THE GRAPH IS MADE UP!!!!
Is this really the best you can do?

[Anonymous No.11256338]

>>11256325
I’ll give you two

Termites and horses

Three if you count humans gut bacteria absorbing it

[Anonymous No.11256340]

>>11256220
You could also say the same thing about refined sugar, which has been absolutely proven to cause many health issues, while only processed meats were proven to raise your risk of colon cancer by .9% if eaten every day. Eating refined sugar and carbs helps bad bacteria grow in your digestive system, which could also be contributing to colon cancer, and USA is the country with the highest sugar consumption per capita.

[Anonymous No.11256348]

>>11256338
>Termites
>Termites are detritivores, consuming dead plants at any level of decomposition. They also play a vital role in the ecosystem by recycling waste material such as dead wood, faeces and plants.[80][81][82] Many species eat cellulose, having a specialised midgut that breaks down the fibre.
>Many species eat cellulose, having a specialised midgut that breaks down the fibre.

[Anonymous No.11256355]

>>11256242
theres no such thing as fuitivor or whatever
its just called omnivore you spastic
and monkeys love hunting little shits for meat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpYViR9MqrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQq93Q2txrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik
etc......

[Anonymous No.11256360]

>>11256242
https://veganbiologist.com/2016/01/04/humans-are-not-herbivores/

[Anonymous No.11256372]

>>11256340
>.9%
Nice fudging
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661797/#!po=14.2241

[Anonymous No.11256378]

>>11256348
The midgut consists of a bacteria derived from the waste they eat.

[Anonymous No.11256381]

>>11256242
Don't most animals find foods that are good for them to smell/taste appetizing? Ignoring things like processed and refined foods, of course. I love the taste of vegetables and whole grains, but I also love dairy and occasionally eating meat.

There's also no reason to grow large, sharp teeth, claws, a stronger digestive system, etc. if we adapted to hold weapons and cook our food to make it easier to digest too.

Not to mention that lactase persistence after childhood in some part of the adult population means that they adapted to consume milk after childhood, as no plants have lactose. So we definitely aren't herbivores, but we aren't carnivores either. The majority of our food should probably still be plants, they taste good and provide health benefits, but so do moderate amounts of animal products along with them.

[Anonymous No.11256385]

>>11256220
>species that has survived and evolved hundred of thousands of years eating animal flesh is not biologically designed to eat flesh
Jolly I better stop eating meat if I want to humanity to live tomorrow, thank you for opening my mind I am now on the right side of history.

[Anonymous No.11256389]

>>11256360
https://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

[SAGE No.11256392]

>>11256220
Gonna post my char grilled 1.7 lb porterhouse in about 10 mins.

[Anonymous No.11256394]

>>11256372
Nah, the .9% increase was from cancer.org or something.

>The excess risk in the highest category of processed meat-eaters is comprised between 20 and 50% compared with non-eaters
So it's still only increasing the risk from 5% to 6%-7.5% at most. It's not something to ignore, but it's also mainly from processed meat and not fresh meat. Eating processed meat with vitamin C or some other things which I can't remember off the top of my head also mitigated the risk. And I think it was mainly due to oxidation of fat causing problems, not that it's because we aren't meant to eat meat.

[Anonymous No.11256400]

>>11256378
But you said they can't digest it, while they have a specialized part of their body to do so. Cows do similar things with their rumen, but they're still herbivores that can digest cellulose.

[Anonymous No.11256401]

>>11256220
All that chart suggests is that WOMEN shouldn't eat meat.

[Anonymous No.11256403]

>>11256401
Women probably do have lower requirements of animal products due to having lower muscle mass than men, and more body fat. That's probably why more women do okay on vegan diets, since like 75% of them are women.

[Anonymous No.11256411]

>>11256403
Women do have higher iron and calcium requirements, though. Both are of course available elsewhere, but vegans are cutting out their richest source of both.

[Anonymous No.11256416]

>>11256400
Not on their own. Its really all semantics in the same way that our own gut bacteria breaks down fiber and cellulose

[Anonymous No.11256421]

>>11256394
Only? That’s a pretty significant uptick not even considering exposure to other risk factors. The amount of Vitamin C supplemented would have to be pretty large doses of a supplement, nothing reasonable from food consumption

[Anonymous No.11256433]

>>11256421
>Only?
Well, "only" when compared to saying "a 50% increase" which sounds a lot higher than saying "from 5% to 7.5%". Statistically it means potentially thousands of more deaths, and is something that definitely needs to be addressed and dealt with. But going vegan won't automatically solve the issue, because if more people went vegan, you'd probably get similar issues from vegan foods that are more likely to have oxidized fats or anything else like processed meats. There's probably a way to eliminate the risk from processed meat or just figure out better preservation methods so more people eat fresh meat instead of processed meat.

[Anonymous No.11256445]

>>11256433
Ironically, we don't need "new" or "Better" preservation methods. We just need to go back to the old ones.

It's the cheap modern processed meat that's the problem because it's loaded with nitrites. Old-fashioned cured meats don't have that. It's industry which is fucking us over. We don't need less meat or less preservation. We need less *modern*.

[Anonymous No.11256456]

>>11256445
>We need less *modern*.
I'm not a big fan of going backwards entirely. It's good to make a comparison to the old ways to see problems caused with the new ways, but I like to see how technological innovations can solve these issues.

[Anonymous No.11256502]

>>11256220
This is pretty much only an endorsement of eating fiber, which has been known for 30 years
veganism has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous No.11256523]

>>11256330
Yugoslavia and the old East Germany?
Old graph I guess.

[Anonymous No.11256525]

>>11256389
That does nothing to refute any of the arguments presented, it just repeats them.

[Anonymous No.11256533]

>>11256266
All you did was present a false analogy. Did you have anything relevant to say?

[Anonymous No.11256556]

why do anons still fight the vegan larpers? you will never win against the willfully stupid.

[Anonymous No.11256558]

>>11256266
That's just stupid.
People who eat a lot of meat could easily also have other lifestyle habits and the graph does not prove it's not one of those causing the cancer.
The kind of woman who eats a pound of meat a day may very well also be more like to drink and smoke for example, and looking at only one particular aspect of her lifestyle does indeed not prove a causation.

I'll see if I can fit it into your retarded thinking; imagine being tied and blindfolded and having your stepdad throw all sorts of shit at your face for half an hour. When he takes the blindfold off you again one of the many bloodied things on the ground is a baseball. Does that prove it was the baseball that broke your nose and the hammer or the rock?

[Anonymous No.11256564]

>>11256525
Except it doesn’t. Your little link that just nitpicks were not 100% like a horse is bogus at best.

[Anonymous No.11256597]

>>11256564
There wasn't even any reference to horses made in the part that addresses the image. Are you psychotic or illiterate?

[Anonymous No.11256608]

>>11256597
Are you? Or are you just schizophrenic? Because nobody is talking about horses.

[Anonymous No.11256610]

>>11256558
>>11256533
I've got a background in biostatistics. When you can fit a line like you could on that graph, it's time to draw some conclusions. Your argument that "it could be something else!" only puts you in a position of risk by ignoring the data. This is why there are professionals like myself who are paid to interpret these things which might kill your ignorant asses if not acted upon. It doesn't matter to me whether you understand or not because I am right either way.

[Anonymous No.11256618]

>>11256597
>taking the statement literally
The point was that its nitpicking

[Anonymous No.11256622]

>>11256608
Read the post I replied to again and then go see a doctor. Evidently your short term memory is defective.

[Anonymous No.11256627]

>>11256618
How so? There are just demonstrably false claims, like stomach pH

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134116

[Anonymous No.11256635]

>>11256301
This.

[Anonymous No.11256647]

>>11256627
That’s basically the only one. Again it’s primarily based “we don’t do X therefore we aren’t Y!” despite the otherwise similarities. You aren’t making any actual legitimate critiques other than urine PH being incorrect

[Anonymous No.11256653]

>>11256647
*stomach

[Anonymous No.11256717]

>>11256242
>That’s basically the only one.
Nah, it's almost all rubbish. Tarsiers are carnivores and racoons are omnivores with prehensile hands. Dinosaurs are carnivores that walk upright. A hippo is an herbivore with a large mouth opening. Pandas have tooth characteristics of carnivores and omnivores despite being herbivores, and
there's evidence that meat-eating exerted selective pressure on sharpening hominid molars (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit/).). Etc.

>Again it’s primarily based “we don’t do X therefore we aren’t Y!”
Are you implying disproof by counterexample is wrong? Go take a logic class.

>despite the otherwise similarities.
So what similarities are you referring to?

>You aren’t making any actual legitimate critiques other than urine PH being incorrect
You're just asserting the link is wrong without providing any genuine counterargument.

[Anonymous No.11256722]

>>11256717
meant to quote >>11256647

[Anonymous No.11256732]

>>11256416
Not him but you got btfo retard

[Anonymous No.11256751]

>>11256717
Again, exceptions don’t make a rule. The totality of the parts do not get overruled by a minority. Simply saying its rubbish because you find EXCEPTIONS does not change the rule.

Cats can eat plants, it doesn’t make them herbivores.

>are you implying disproof by counter example is wrong
Thats not counterexample. That’s actual cherrypicking of a minority which is unironically what your bogus article complains about

>so what similarities are you referring to
Perhaps the image that sparked the discussion and displayed them? Are you blind or just substituting thorough critique for cheap barbs and exceptions to the rule?

>youre just asserting the link is wrong
Funny. What is it exactly that did you here then? >>11256525

Considering what you linked criticizes the idea of physiological structure argument with literally only “what is this a platonic diet?” you really have no room to criticize anything

[Anonymous No.11256771]

>>11256220
>DDR
>YUG

So this is at least 3 decades old. Are you a Kavanaugh accuser by chance?

[Anonymous No.11256806]

>>11256751
>>11256717
Ill dissect it even further

>Hands/legs: Is this reflecting adaptation towards specific diets? I think not
Incredible deconstruction!

>Walking: Well this is obviously cherry picked to fit the idea. These walking styles are in no way representative of diet. Some primates walk upright, and many primates are omnivores.
Proceeds to then misinterpret and cherrypick a point about hippos mouth openings in a following post, walking styles relate a lot to mobility and the necessity of our adaptation to the environmental of why we need to move. He also continues to not fully understand the complex classifications of diet into omnivore and herbivore and carnivore

>Human teeth look neither like an herbivore or a carnivore. Again, cherry picking away, what would happen if you used a panda as representative of herbivore teeth?
Cherrypicking at exceptions yet again while ignoring the totality

>Saliva: As discussed above, humans have adapted to eating starch from agriculture. Omnivores are expected to handle both vegetable matter and animal tissue, so this is nothing strange
Utterly false and he completely misinterprets the point about being able to effectively break down STARCHES not just plant matters in general

>Fibers and cholesterol: This might be true, but it’s mainly carnivores that really need these traits. I don’t know if this is representative of the given groups, but from what you might notice, you shouldn’t trust the image.
Wow. Totally a trustworthy source himself that is never wrong. He MIGHT just be right!

>Sweat: Humans are like omnivores in this sense even according to the image
Cherrypicking :) Also blatantly disregarding it’s similar to herbivores as well, makes another falsely similar point about this as well with cellulose

>Colons: Hear my guess
Brilliant man

You’re free to have skepticism of the original image. Using that piss poor link as a source does nothing for you and by your standards should be equally admissible

[Anonymous No.11256817]

>>11256751
>Again, exceptions don’t make a rule. The totality of the parts do not get overruled by a minority. Simply saying its rubbish because you find EXCEPTIONS does not change the rule.
So what is the rule? This is devolving into semantics. If someone asserts "all swans are white", and I find a black swan, the claim is falsified.

>Cats can eat plants, it doesn’t make them herbivores.
So what doesn't make them herbivores? Define your terms.

>Thats not counterexample. That’s actual cherrypicking of a minority which is unironically what your bogus article complains about
Cherry picking would be to exclude and not address counterexamples like the ones I've provided.

>Perhaps the image that sparked the discussion and displayed them?
You reject counterexamples, so what evidence lead you to believe the image in correct in the first place?

>Funny. What is it exactly that did you here then? >>11256525
The link I provided actually responds to the image, your link on the other hand simply repeats it in the form of a table. Argument by repetition is a fallacy.

>Considering what you linked criticizes the idea of physiological structure argument with literally only “what is this a platonic diet?” you really have no room to criticize anything
Tell me what you mistakenly believe the weasel word "physiological food" means. I can't wait to laugh.

[Anonymous No.11256821]

I'd rather die early than go my whole life never knowing the joy of bacon or lobster or a big plate of chicken wings.

[Anonymous No.11256828]

>>11256806
And of course his stupid little nugget about “artificial B12” isn’t really even worth mentioning on its own let alone the fact B12 can be extracted from a variety of sources less convenient but every bit as non-artificial as meat

[Anonymous No.11256834]

>>11256220
Biologically speaking, humans should only eat tiny portions of meat, fish and insects, lots of non cultivated vegetables, some wild fruits and walk 20 miles a day at least

[Anonymous No.11256837]

>>11256220
What about wild game? Like the kids of things our ancestors would've eaten? That's not the same as the meat we eat today.

[Anonymous No.11256855]

>>11256610
>background in biostatistics
two weeks ago you had a phd in physical fitness, last week you had an "advanced degree" in nutrition. go larp someplace else faggot.
nice use of alliteration though

[Anonymous No.11256865]

>>11256334
The point still stands. It cites no source.

[Anonymous No.11256866]

>>11256821
How about having high chances of living long and healthy and still enjoy all this but only on special occasions instead of every other week.

[Anonymous No.11256877]

>>11256817
>so what is the rule
Humans are herbivorous. Are you also substituting any actual critique for some quips?

>If someone asserts "all swans are white", and I find a black swan, the claim is falsified
It’s almost as if the topic isn’t as stupidly black and white as this. You yourself and the author listed examples of carnivores having an otherwise herbivorous trait or two, it doesn’t change the fact they are carnivores.

>So what doesn’t make them herbivores
Biologically, their biology, their physiology, their responses to a diet of plant matter

>cherrypicking would be
It would actually be the exact opposite that you are doing, ignoring a self admitted totality for little things. But that’s really not the point. Because again as we know by every metric, cats can have “herbivorous” traits and behaviors which is an otherwise miniscule amount, it doesn’t make them herbivores, to make that claim isn’t ignoring anything as much as it is simply being reasonable. Why exactly do you think an overwhelming minority should take over the majority? Because that’s not how it works in any way even if you have a black swan

>you reject counterexamples
You reject actual total examples. I’ll try getting to your juvenile level of understanding. “All swans are black because one exists in a flock of white swans.” Now that doesn’t make much sense does it?

>the link I provided actually responds
It responds with almost total bullshit. Its every bit as credible as the image you’re freaking out over assuming any of his third grade critiques are remotely correct

At this point you’re basically just criticizing the IDEA of herbivorous humans and the actual semantics rather than the content itself

[Anonymous No.11256880]

post fridge

[Anonymous No.11256882]

>>11256865
It’s from The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.

[Anonymous No.11256930]

>>11256279
>vegan
>big
>right

[Anonymous No.11256960]

>>11256220
What's with the vegan shills lately? What do they have to prove, what's their point, why do they care so much?

[Anonymous No.11256971]

>>11256960
>lately

[Anonymous No.11256978]

>>11256971
We had maybe one shill thread per day before. I'm noticing sometimes up to 10 shill threads recently. So yeah, lately

[Anonymous No.11257008]

>>11256877
>Humans are herbivorous.
petitio principii

>It’s almost as if the topic isn’t as stupidly black and white as this. You yourself and the author listed examples of carnivores having an otherwise herbivorous trait or two, it doesn’t change the fact they are carnivores.
So what's the objective criteria for carnivory?

>Biologically, their biology, their physiology, their responses to a diet of plant matter
That's Deepak Chopra levels of ambiguity. If the definition can't make any independently testable/verifiable/falsifiable predictions then it has nothing to do with biology or science for that matter.

>It would actually be the exact opposite that you are doing, ignoring a self admitted totality
There was never any totality presented in the first place, nor a statistical threshold for when something becomes totality.

>But that’s really not the point. Because again as we know by every metric, cats can have “herbivorous” traits and behaviors which is an otherwise miniscule amount, it doesn’t make them herbivores, to make that claim isn’t ignoring anything as much as it is simply being reasonable.
Quantify this 'minuscule amount'

>Why exactly do you think an overwhelming minority should take over the majority? Because that’s not how it works in any way even if you have a black swan
We're talking about definitions here. You don't get to define "herbivore" by amending ad hoc members like pandas, just like how you don't get to define "gravity" by Newtonian means with an extra special equation that just applies for Mercury's orbit.

>You reject actual total examples. I’ll try getting to your juvenile level of understanding. “All swans are black because one exists in a flock of white swans.” Now that doesn’t make much sense does it?
Look at that straw man. I would say swans can be both black and white and that the algorithm to determine whether or not something is a swan must include both colors or be independent of color entirely.

[Anonymous No.11257015]

>>11256220

Reasons I am not vegan:

1) I'm an alpha male, so I don't feel bad for the animals that are killed for my food. I buy direct from farmers at a local farmers market. The meat is fresher and has no preservatives, it is tastier, more tender and lasts longer in terms of shelf life. Taking the initiative to be responsible for the support of ethical meat farming through morally sound animal husbandry is the true way to stop the horrendous acts of "big meat".

2) I am a normal, mentally sound human male. This means I not only enjoy meat but require it as a part of a balanced omnivorous diet, as nature intended.

3) I am not some retarded, weak minded kid who needs to stop eating meat to get women to play with mine.

4) I am not some dim witted kid who's only downfall was having parents from the biggest piece of shit generational cross over imaginable: late boomers and early X - who give more of a shit about themselves and money than their fellow man. They are the same shit for brains who are now trying to convince the planet vegan is good.

In truth it is only good for them. Their meat farms don't grow produce as quickly as their soy ones and their feed processing plants can easily be retrofitted to produce vegan food. So they would much rather meat become a speciality product for the rich (as it was pretty much was exclusively before 1960) and make more money selling us the stuff they used to feed the cows, but at the price they used to charge for meat.

Meanwhile these same rich owners continue to import and demand items such as lamb, veal, kobe beef and foie gras. Why would you be so retarded that you let rich pollution of the public sphere cloud your judgement and influence your diet? Must have been born in 1995 or later.
Poor earth. You used to be a great place to live.

[Anonymous No.11257022]

>>11256220
>Women
I see nothing of importance

[Anonymous No.11257030]

>>11256220
>Nig
>Living long enough to have the opportunity to get colon cancer

[Anonymous No.11257045]

reading this thread I'm feeling like pic related

[Anonymous No.11257085]

>>11257008
>petitio principii

Strawmannus faggotus. I see you’ve abandoned any actual discussion at this point

>whats the criteria for X?
See above

>Thats ambigous
Its rather straightforward. You’ve just resorted to going for any weak jab you can get at this point

>there was never any totality
Oh, the “playus dumbus” game. Classic.

>Qualify this miniscule amount
Perhaps the one trait versus about a few dozen others? Are you basically just being a three year old on purpose at this point because you can’t argue anything of substance?

>we’re talking about definitions
And what definitions are those?

>muh continuous strawman examples which have nothing to do with herbivore etc.
Its funny you can relay an actual criticism of anything but what’s actually being discussed

>look at that straw man
Is this is a self-revelation at your own stupidity? I think it is

Are you done playing retarded six year old philosopher? Yeah? Cool. I

[Anonymous No.11257095]

>>11257015
>im an ALPHA that eats BACON xDDDDD NOMNOMNOMNOMNOM

[Anonymous No.11257176]

>>11257095
never forget the eggs and sriracha fellow pede

[Anonymous No.11257193]

>>11256220
stop with this stupid argument. Humans aren't "designed" by anything and we will eat anything we can to survive.
t. vegan

[Anonymous No.11257210]

DONT REPLY TO SHITPOSTS FELLOW /CK/OURGETTES.

[Anonymous No.11257217]

>>11257193
Those aren’t mutually exclusive concepts

t. not vegan

[Anonymous No.11257358]

>>11257085
>Strawmannus faggotus.
You decided humans are herbivorous by a priori declaring them as that as a rule. That's petitio principii.

>Its rather straightforward.
If it's so easy then go ahead and elaborate, oh intelligent one.

>You’ve just resorted to going for any weak jab you can get at this point
projection

> Oh, the “playus dumbus” game. Classic.
An n=1 example for a carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, and frugivore constitutes totality now but an n=1 counterexample is cherry picking? My fucking sides.

>Perhaps the one trait versus about a few dozen others?
A panda has a few dozen carnivorous traits. Way to contradict yourself.

>Are you basically just being a three year old on purpose at this point because you can’t argue anything of substance?
Just going down to your level.

>And what definitions are those?
That of a carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, and frugivore. Read the thread.

>>muh continuous strawman examples which have nothing to do with herbivore etc.
>Its funny you can relay an actual criticism of anything but what’s actually being discussed
I posted relevant examples. Your emotional denial will not change this fact.

>Is this is a self-revelation at your own stupidity? I think it is
[projection intensifies]

[Anonymous No.11257390]

As someone whose diet is 90% meat, eggs, or dairy, I don’t give a fuck. The increase in quality of life is worth the slight rise in risk for this.

[Anonymous No.11257426]

>>11257358
>by declaring that as a rule
That’s based on the evidence presented. You declared this was begging the question because....?

>no you!!!
Great job, guy

>both are n=1
Playing dumb again

>a panda has a few dozen carnivorous traits
Begging the question

>no you!!!
Brilliant again

>that of
Begging the question

>I posted relevant examples
You posted a couple of exceptions. Why is it that when i did the same with cats you got so butthurt but have no problem doing yourself? Why are you so all over the minority of evidence than the majority? I know! You’re a retard with no interest in the actual discussion so you’ve decided to try and trade cheap fifth grade pseud barbs as a substitute for having no actual argument for any of the original discussion!

>projection
Three times saying “no you!!” Truly impressive, big boy. Ad hominems are beautiful especially when they highlight the reducto ad absurdum

[Anonymous No.11257580]

>>11257426
>That’s based on the evidence presented. You declared this was begging the question because....?
What evidence? Your hallucinations are only evidence of your mental illness. Get help.

>Playing dumb again
wrong again

>Begging the question
Nope. You're embarassing yourself, kid. Don't use terms you don't understand.

>Why is it that when i did the same with cats you got so butthurt but have no problem doing yourself?
Is this how it happened in bizarro world? Back to the planet we're living on, I provided counterexamples to specific traits originally presented as determinants of herbivory/omnivory/carnivory. Your 'argument' (i.e. fallacy) was that there exists a threshold of traits ("one trait versus about a few dozen others") and now after showing you how this generates a contradiction in the case of pandas you baselessly accuse me of being butthurt? Why can't you end the debate like a mature adult by admitting you were wrong and thanking me for educating you? Why do you have to be so childish and flood the thread with insults?

>Three times saying “no you!!” Truly impressive, big boy.
I'm glad to hear you admit to me being right in all three cases. You can stop shitposting now.

>Ad hominems are beautiful especially when they highlight the reducto ad absurdum
Didn't realize word salad was on the menu today.

[Anonymous No.11258111]

>>11256220
>DDR, aka East Germany, on the chart

How old is this shit?

[Anonymous No.11258614]

>>11256220
Only red meat and processed meats have been shown to increase colon cancer risk. Consumption of other meats/fish will have no detrimental health effects.

[Anonymous No.11258620]

>>11258614
Only red processed meats*

[Anonymous No.11258694]

Ah, but can you please explain why allergies are pretty much always for plants and rarely to never for meats?

[Anonymous No.11258699]

>>11258694
Shrimp allergies are common.

[Anonymous No.11258708]

>>11256416
>our own gut bacteria breaks down fiber and cellulose
it literally doesn't that's the point
this is why humans can't eat grass or wood the way herbivores do
our gut isn't strong enough or large enough to break plant matter down very well

[Anonymous No.11258716]

>>11256971
I kinda miss that time around 10 years ago when all for sale domains had this bitch smirking at you

[Anonymous No.11258738]

>>11256220
>Biologically speaking, humans should not eat meat
thread hidden like all the other retarded ones on this site. something or other about sage, idgaf, no one cares, here's your free (you)

[im vegan debate me No.11258789]

>>112562420
>bigemoveganmilkies
>best vegan meme 2019
GIB SOY MILKIES

you fell for the bait though
frame your first reply better
>>11256242
He's technically right though
>>11256228
Brush up on your definition of design and come back when you understand the evolutionary "design"

[Anonymous No.11258797]

>>11258738
>he replies and THEN hides the thread so EVERYONE, inclusive to himself and his phone, know that he saged and hid the thread.
Spot the newfag with the wasted time cop-out everyone.
The triggered are easily spotted. Why are you so triggered anon? Does veganism strike a nerve? Is it because I think you're a fucking piece of human shit? You do nothing but polute, harm innocent, equal, lovely creatures because your tummy needs to satiate?


>>11258738
You're a stupid turd on this planet. If you have the balls to do your research you'll come to the same conclusion.
Lazy faggot.

[Anonymous No.11258802]

>>11258614
Does it really even have that much of an effect in people that are eating sufficient fiber and passing it, or just people that are getting backed up and letting it sit in their colon?

[Anonymous No.11258806]

>>11258802
>in their colon

[Anonymous No.11258837]

>>11256220
Name the trait, carnist cucks.

[Anonymous No.11258877]

>>11256220
Is eating my ass vegan?

[Anonymous No.11258926]

Will Vegans eventually attack Vegetarians and Herbivores? There's a limited supply of veggies and grass unoe.

[Frost No.11258992]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory

[Anonymous No.11259002]

>>11258992
Again with that term?
Do you realise how obvious it is to the rest of us that you just started college and you're desperate to throw around your newly-learned Big College Words to show what a fucking expert you've become in a couple weeks?

[Anonymous No.11259009]

>Biologically speaking, humans should not eat meat.
Historically speaking, eating meat is the entire reason why human civilization exists at all. Tool use evolved out of the need to hunt. Our larger brains can also be attributed to the higher amount of protein we were getting from eating bone marrow, combined with a genetic defect making us have a weaker jaw (which allowed for a larger skull cavity). That weaker jaw, by the way, made nut-based diets less desirable.

We're omnivores. We evolved as omnivores, and had we not been omnivores, we would still be as dumb as apes.

[Anonymous No.11259015]

>>11256220
can't help but notice a lot of countries are missing here
of course you can draw correlations if you exclude data that disagrees with it

[Frost No.11259017]

>>11259002

>t. petulant vegan

I don't blame you. After all, you're only behaving as you're programmed to.

[Frost No.11259019]

>>11259009

Capped for future use. I've always been too damn lazy, so thank you for your service, Anon.

[Anonymous No.11259023]

I am a vegetarian because I like animals and it's better for the environment.

Inb4 someone says "but u know when harvesting dey kill things rite????" as if that is the same as raising an animal just to kill it and eat its flesh.

[Anonymous No.11259027]

>>11259009
That's exactly why vegans are as dumb as apes.

[Frost No.11259049]

>>11259023

>F L E S H

You prey *do* realize that you just make the rest of us hungry when you spout that, right?

>>11259027

Kek

[Anonymous No.11259058]

>>11258802
There are a few things that can be causing it, I don't think they pinpointed it exactly. But one potential issue is that the fat in it is oxidized which means it's not about how long it sits in the colon. But there are ways to reduce or eliminate the issue that's being looked into.

[Anonymous No.11259087]

>>11256242
But this only compares humans to other wild animals that don't cook and prepare their food. A lot of the digestion process of humans happens outside our bodies in the form of thermal and chemical processing of food. Once you've turned the cow into a hamburger, a food that requires almost no chewing, is it really any different from eating termites?

[Anonymous No.11259106]

>>11257095

Typical ADD zoomer, reads the first few words and HAS to make an edgy comment. No wonder their generation are so fucked hahaha

[Anonymous No.11259445]

>>11256610
You might have a phd in sucking big fat nigger balls, but anyone who works with statistical data can call your bullshit from a mile. You did not cite any actual studies, your sources are nonexistent, your chart is laughable from a scientific standpoint. It's fucking obvious that the data points were selected to fit the chart and not the other way around. Kys, you are worse than the beef and oil guy from the other thread. also this: >>11256855
t. data scientist

[Anonymous No.11259462]

>>11259049
Yo its the namecuck from the other thread. Get new image macros bucko, also names are for tranny fags.

[Anonymous No.11259471]

>>11259462
that is not an image macro

[Frost No.11259488]

>>11259462

>macro

When will lel leddit learn?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory

[Anonymous No.11259507]

>>11259488
dont get cocky, you are also cancer

[Anonymous No.11259512]

>>11256220
>Biologically speaking, humans should not eat meat.
>vegans are genuinely this retarded

[Anonymous No.11259530]

>vast majority of humanity eats animal products and has done so for hundreds of thousands of years, millions even
>humans should not be eating animal products
I don't understand what it takes to arrive at this conclusion. There is simply no argument for such a position.

[Anonymous No.11259532]

>>11259507
based weeb bully

[Anonymous No.11259538]

>>11259530
>There is simply no argument for such a position.
Moral arguments make a little more sense, or at least for reduction since a lot of people mindlessly consume meat without thinking about where it cames from or giving any respect to it at all. But once they start trying to say it's healthier, the arguments start falling apart. Plant foods have benefits, but so do animal foods. Which is why lab-grown meat seems more promising if the goal is to stop animal slaughter.

[Anonymous No.11259846]

>>11256960
the future is vegan

[Anonymous No.11259861]

[Anonymous No.11260015]

>>11259445
>You did not cite any actual studies, your sources are nonexistent
This is 4chan, you aspie fuck. Did you really think I was going to provide in-text citations and type out a works cited page? How embarrassing for you.
>your chart is laughable from a scientific standpoint. It's fucking obvious that the data points were selected to fit the chart and not the other way around.
You have no proof of the latter and no context on which to support the former. If you actually want to try disproving something, reverse image search and find the source. I don't care. There are thousands of examples to support my position, but I'm not going to waste my time spoon-feeding retards. To me, it sounds like you're an angry man-titted, flabby meat boy. If you want to ignore the facts, it's your ass on the line. Good luck out there, champ.

[Anonymous No.11260023]

>>11260015
>man-titted, flabby meat boy
Whoa, slammed!

[Anonymous No.11260063]

We evolved to be opportunistic hunters, mainly plants and occasionally meat, this has the benefit of increasing our food options but the negative that we haven't specialized in any one area(meat or plants). But to imply that the copious amount of meat we eat today is healthy, that's just straight up wrong. I personally only eat meat once a week, but most Americans have no idea what moderation is.

[Anonymous No.11260076]

>>11256242
Little do you know, the reason we arent still apes is BECAUSE of us eating meat, cooked meat especially. If we had never started eating meat wed still be flat-faced apes lumbering about the forest and you wouldnt be able to push your vegan agenda on a Prussian water-color enthusiasts forum.

[Anonymous No.11260230]

>>11256220
Shut up, idiot.

[Anonymous No.11260238]

>>11256279
Hurhur, yer a fag.

[Anonymous No.11260243]

>kill animal
>cook animal
>less digestion necessary
>no canines necessary
>more brain power
You know digesting plants takes like a fuckton of work? That's why sloths are so slow and why all our vegetals are Frankenstein monstrosities compared to their wild counterparts.

[Anonymous No.11260245]

>>11260076
>cooking foods made us human

Ya dont say!

[Anonymous No.11260254]

>>11260243
So are plants incapable of being cooked or something?

>more brain power
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.11260261]

>>11256221
But I also don't care

[Anonymous No.11260273]

>>11260254
oh yeah but that's the theory
Cooking MEAT made us not-neanderthals (no big jaw muscles = bigger brain) and cellulose is indigestible no matter how much to cook it. We had to breed the shit out of plants to make them edible like they are today. Vegans aren't more natural than meat eaters.

[Anonymous No.11260320]

>>11260273
Cellulose is broken down by gut bacteria and that has literally nothing to do with your original statement. Saying cooked meat and only cooked meat having some biological impact on our brains because of some magical property is purely conjecture

>we had to breed the shit out of plants to make them edible
This isn’t theory but flat out false. Again. Are vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and starches incapable of being cooked?

[Anonymous No.11260369]

I'd rather die from colon cancer at 60 than from some E coli infection at 35

[Anonymous No.11260497]

>>11256220
So what you're really saying is, each like a Hungarian

[Anonymous No.11260635]

https://youtu.be/LUm4LSGlKsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msk2kR4_3ak
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=2m6s
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=7m27s
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=14m34s

Is there any argument against this? I mean I'm struggling to find a single vegan that hasn't aged terribly, surely not every single one is doing it wrong?

And you need to use supplements.

[Anonymous No.11261574]

>>11256338
>horses
niggerwut

[Anonymous No.11261593]

>>11256389
humans are natural plant eaters which is why we have shorter alimentary canals and why we have been eating meat throughout our history

[Anonymous No.11261601]

>>11256220
>go vegan
>live ten years longer
>the shittiest ten years at the end of my life

Why bother? I could see if that shit would have me living like 120 years old or some shit, but the benefit isn't enough to get me to forego something I enjoy.

[Anonymous No.11261623]

>>11261593
>DUDE MUH EXCEPTIONS
We also have consumed lead throughout history, care to chow down?

[Anonymous No.11261624]

>>11256220
I went to NZ (south island) and hardly anyone there is fat. Also, unrelated, they really need to get on globally exporting L&P, shit is delicious.

[Anonymous No.11261643]

>>11256220
>DDR
>using information gathered before the god damned wall fell

[Anonymous No.11261648]

>>11261623
oh please do tell me how feces infested vegetarian diet for the sake of b12 is any more viable

[Anonymous No.11261658]

>>11261643
>recency bias
Probably the only argument ketards have at this point

>>11261648
That post doesn’t make sense nor relate to what was being discussed, care to clarify?

[Anonymous No.11261660]

>>11261601
>the shittiest ten years at the end of my life
That's not how it works. It means that biologically you'll age slower, meaning that your best years are even longer. People start dying at around 70-80 because their bodies just begin to break down and cease to be functional, but if you're a healthy person then you can postpone that further, and even be relatively active in your final years instead of spending the last five with dementia or in a wheelchair.

[Anonymous No.11261685]

>>11261660
Wheelchairs are cool though I'd be like a fucking cyborg

[Anonymous No.11261695]

so you're saying that by eating delicious food my risk would increase from 0.00001 to 0.00003?

[Anonymous No.11261704]

>>11261695
*0.0001 to 0.0003 my mistake this changes everything

[Anonymous No.11261707]

>>11261658
natural plant eater article argues that since b12 can be found in fecal matter our source of b12 came from unhygienic plants in the past

[Anonymous No.11261708]

>>11261695
Eating processed red meats increases the risk by 40% while unprocessed is more towards “”random chance”” at around 12% both are actually quite significant in the grand scheme of things especially when you take into account other lifestyle factors

[Anonymous No.11261710]

>eat meat
>get colon cancer at 70
>commit suicide before the pain gets too bad

Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.11261719]

>>11260635
Answer this lads, why do all these people age so fast? And the teeth thing

[Anonymous No.11261724]

>>11261707
Unwashed plants and water yes, i dont see the issue, id rather synthesize the B12 from a clean plant source than have gyardia, technological advancement is great, like the agricultural revolutions that allow mass production of foods that we rely on when going to supermarkets, advances in medicine to treat illnesses and injuries, electronics to have conversations like this

[Anonymous No.11261726]

>>11261707
>>11261658
here it is

[Anonymous No.11261738]

>>11256220
>Our physiology is not designed for...

Yes it is you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.11261742]

>>11261724
author makes his entire point based on the alleged fact that humans are natural plant eaters, and when confronted with the b12 problem defaulted to saying that all primitive humans were scatman john, which should immediately raise concerns, because eating fecal ridden food is a great way to die

[Anonymous No.11261761]

>>11261742
Okay. That’s not necessarily my point. That was partially a source of B12 and shows we have a capability of extracting B12 from plant sources. I wouldn’t say we got “all” our B12 from it then as obviously meat was a source

[Anonymous No.11261764]

>>11261726
Link on lakes is dead, link on b12 in dirty plants and feces admits the majority is from pseudocobalamins which not only are inactive but competitively antagonize b12 uptake. feces and dirty plants have never been shown to cure b12 deficiency in a controlled study so it's pure speculation

https://www.nature.com/articles/531S12a
>A few years ago, archaeologists in Tanzania unearthed fragments of a child's skull dating back 1.5 million years. Deformities on the bones suggested that the child had died from porotic hyperostosis, a condition thought to result from a deficiency in vitamin B12 — found exclusively in animal-derived foods. Humans started eating dairy products only in the past 5,000 years, meaning that the child had almost certainly died from a lack of meat7. So, by at least 1.5 million years ago, says Domínguez-Rodrigo, humans had become so adapted to eating meat that without it they would die.

[Anonymous No.11261770]

Veganism just isn't sustainable, you'll lose your teeth, get b12 deficient, age like milk. We're meant to be vegetarian.

[Anonymous No.11261799]

>>11256220
Ever considered it's maybe that the health problem is that people are eating TOO much? I mean, if you want to go full retard, you could pull up a graph indicating that people who eat tons of glucose are obese and THEREFORE GLUCOSE IS BAD GUYS.

[Anonymous No.11261810]

>>11261764
Pseudocobalamins typically occur in fermented planted foods, and those do inhibit B12 intake while providing none of its own, thats not a reflection of actual cobalamins in the dirt

[Anonymous No.11261816]

>>11260320
What? Ru kidding me?
That's the mainstream science (I guess pre-vegan propaganda)

[Anonymous No.11261840]

>>11261810
exactly, there's apparently some active b12 vitaminers in the dirt they tested, but whether or not these can be assimilated in the presence of a high burden of inactive analogues remains to be tested. it's also possible that it may vary depending on location and other environmental factors that influence the composition of rhizosphere microorganisms. you can't use this to conclude it's a viable b12 source, nonetheless that this is where ancestral humans obtained b12

[Anonymous No.11261842]

>>11261816
>that’s the mainstream science
Whatever segment you’re referring to of that post, you’d be wrong either way. Cooking foods in general considering it allowed us to actually be able to digest foods like meat and glucose rich starches (glucose which our brain runs on) and foods in general can not only increase the bioavailability of nutrients of some of these foods but break them down easier so that they digest easier in our stomach, think a pound of raw broccoli versus a pound of cooked broccoli, completely different digestive mechanisms

More calories, more nutrients, extremely important. That has nothing to implicitly do with veganism. It’s just actually thinking a little bit and not blindly following pop science narrative

[Anonymous No.11261843]

>>11260254
>No source again
Spectacular. It's British, in case you're wondering, and it's not replicated among men in the US, though it is among women in the US, though not as strongly. Blame the Anglos.
It's also amusing to note that exceptional intelligence has been regularly associated with mental disorders and is usually explained by 'overexcitabilities', such as ruminating over a comment in ways most people wouldn't bother to (essentially, autism).

[Anonymous No.11261856]

>>11261840
Mozafar in 1994 showed that soil consumption and or consumption of unwashed crops grown in soil can actively raise B12 levels. It was a one off study and of course questions about soil quality differences and health concerns were noted but it was possible. Coprophagia which simians engage in eating their own shit to continue to reintroduce nutrients into the body even after digested has also been theorized to have been practiced by our ancestors. There’s been a couple studies of people being able to consume B12 supplemented water from their own shit from the small intestine which holds loads of B12 which we don’t naturally synthesize in our own bodies was also shown to raise B12 levels

Personally i say fuck nature and just do whats best. Supplements can be a great source for many things, not all of course, but there is definitely evidence for biological basis to veganism.

[Anonymous No.11261867]

>>11261843
>no source again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17175567/

Do you need EVERYTHING spoonfed to you in order to take a source seriously or do you adjust your tinfoil while seriously implying it’s fictitious?

>and it's not replicated among men in the US, though it is among women in the US, though not as strongly. Blame the Anglos.
It's also amusing to note that exceptional intelligence has been regularly associated with mental disorders and is usually explained by 'overexcitabilities', such as ruminating over a comment in ways most people wouldn't bother to (essentially, autism).

Sorry. No sources. Dismissed

[Anonymous No.11261878]

>>11261856
do you have links to these studies? and what exactly do you mean by a "biological basis"

[Anonymous No.11261971]

>>11261878
The full studies are behind paywalls which i can access through here https://sci-hub.tw

The spam filter isn’t letting me post the paywall bypasses links so put these through the first link

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00007957
Mozafar’s soil and B12 study

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/3/852/4716470?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Poo water, the study is mentioned in the review itself on the first page, Sheila Callender

By biological basis I mean having the biology to “naturally” be vegan, no supplements, fortifications, etc.

[Anonymous No.11261974]

>>11261971
This is another alternative link to put through sci-hub for the poo water if the original doesn’t work

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3046314/

[Anonymous No.11261978]

>>11256220
The consumption of cooked meat is what allowed the human brain to grow to it's current size. I do not care about veganism, but please do not lie. thank you.

[Anonymous No.11261985]

>>11261867
>Sorry, no sources, dismissed
I didn't want to spoonfeed.

[Anonymous No.11261990]

>>11261978
Yes. But that is because cooked meat was a source of nutrients and calories, there was nothing exclusive or magical about meat that changed our brains and there is literally zero evidence to show otherwise, purely conjecture

[Anonymous No.11261994]

>>11261856
>Coprophagia which simians engage in eating their own shit to continue to reintroduce nutrients into the body even after digested has also been theorized to have been practiced by our ancestors.
And at some point the overwhelming majority of people began to think the smell of shit was revolting and something to not put in their mouths.

[Anonymous No.11262002]

>>11261994
>at some point people became soyboy plebs

Ftfy

[Anonymous No.11262006]

>>11262002
You are actually, literally, not figuratively, not ironically supporting eating shit, my dude.

[Anonymous No.11262044]

>>11262006
The shitpill is the ultimate pill

[Anonymous No.11262052]

>>11262044
I mean, it's what the plants eat, so I guess you're right in a sense. You've successfully convinced me to eat exclusively things that plants eat.

[Anonymous No.11262057]

https://youtu.be/LUm4LSGlKsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msk2kR4_3ak
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=2m6s
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=7m27s
https://youtu.be/PJnPZgLHHWQ?t=14m34s

Is there any argument against this? I mean I'm struggling to find a single vegan that hasn't aged terribly, surely not every single one is doing it wrong?
And you need to use supplements.

[Anonymous No.11262062]

>>11256220
>>not designed

fuck off intelligent design fag.

[Anonymous No.11262093]

>>11262062
>Let's pour tendies in the gas tank! Who cares if the car was designed to run on gas!
I'm astonished dumb fucks like you can even tie your own shoes.

[Anonymous No.11262110]

>>11261971
thanks

>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00007957
they used isotope dilution analysis with IF, so it can't differentiate pseudocobalamins that bind to IF or identify the concentration of pseudocobalamins that don't. they also only looked at plant tissue, which makes this even more important i would think, as plants express a variety of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes that can potentially modify b12 to an inactive form in addiction to the microorganisms in the soil. this paper for example looks at some in spinach that work on some insecticides

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf8020909

even then, assuming 100% bioavailability and that there's only active b12 (which in addition to the above seems highly unlikely as plants don't have selective transporters for b12 so it's all passive bulk uptake by the transpiration stream), you'd have to consume ~3.37kg of wet weight spinach or ~1.86kg dried soybeans to hit the b12 rda for men if going the 'natural' biofortification route with cow dung.

>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/3/852/4716470?redirectedFrom=fulltext
appears to be citing

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2141.1962.tb06516.x

which doesn't really support their claims. some synthetic b12 was administered and fecal samples were recovered to assess bioavailability. but i don't see where they gave anyone feces to ingest, correct me if i'm wrong

[Anonymous No.11262128]

>>11262093
you are legitimately retarded right? a machine that was designed is not the same as a human being. can you use a flathead screwdriver as a shank? yes, was it designed to be so? no. your generalizations are fucking embarrassing.

the idea that humans were 'designed' to function in anyway, and not a evolutionary adaption of environmental changes, is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.11262148]

>>11262110
>100% bioavailability
and just to clarify, i meant that wrt the bioavailability of b12 in foods used to calculate the rda

[Anonymous No.11263008]

>>11256220
We also should eat everythiing raw and not live in houses, because our biology is designed that way. Also live no more than 35, again because our biology. So if you are older than 35 kill self.

[Anonymous No.11263125]

Why did humans evolve an upright gait, long, powerful legs, shoulders with a bigger range of motion than other primates that makes them perfect for throwing, sweat glands with a capacity for thermoregulation only rivaled by horses, hairless bodies, small teeth, small jaw muscles, and a digestive tract that is shorter than any other primate compared to our body size?

Because we evolved into persistence hunters. Our ancestors chased after prey animals, who would run away until they had to rest. Then our ancestors would follow the tracks and show up before the animal could fully recover and it would run off again. This pattern would repeat itself until the animal collapsed from heat and exhaustion and our ancestors could chuck sharp sticks at it until it died. Homo sapiens evolved to be nature's Terminator.

A mostly plant-based diet was also impossible outside of the tropics, like in Europe, where fruit and nuts are seasonal. Our ancestors would have needed to hunt and trap to even have a chance at surviving. A single deer could feed 4 people for 5 days. In the time between hunts the tribe could set traps, forage seasonal plants, and make clothes and tools. Where would they have found the time for any of this while living mostly off plants?

[Anonymous No.11263129]

>>11262093
>2018
>teleology
shiggy

[Anonymous No.11263145]

>>11256220
Biologically speaking, if I were to go vegan, I'd have to agree to all other aspects of neo-marxism too.
Why should I give up principles just to adopt ideologies that seek to destroy capitalism and western culture in general?

[Anonymous No.11263186]

>>11256866
That would not make you a vegan though

[Frost No.11263248]

>>11261623

Are you seriously equating a few centuries to the entire two million or so years of human evolution? I mean, I know herbivores are the lowest of humans (everyone does, duh), but damn.

Oh, and BTW:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory

[Humans are not like other grea(...) No.11263259]

OP is a fag

[Anonymous No.11263285]

>>11263125
>raccoon
Where do I get me some raccoon meat?

[Anonymous No.11263452]

>>11263259
Note to the uninformed: the small intestine is where nutrients from meat are absorbed after being broken down by pepsin and other proteases. The colon is where bacteria ferment plant matter the body can't digest by itself. What kind of diet would result in the evolution of a long small intestine and a short colon?

Also, the most herbivorous of all great apes, the Gorilla, needs to eat its own shit to fully digest plants. Do with this information what you will, vegans.

[Anonymous No.11264507]

A classic thread.