*sigh*
Okay, here we go again.
First off, none of my arguments contradict each other, so who cares how many I have?
You can have as many arguments as you want, but it does make it important to keep track of which people are debating which positions. Instead, you've mixed and matching and trying to use ideas from one argument as a response to people pointing out flaws in your position on a completely different argument.
You're making 3 true/false assertions, which means there are 2*2*2 = 8 possible combinations of outcomes. For example, if killing animals for food is unethical that doesn't make it any more or less likely that eating animals is bad for your health.
One of the cornerstones of ethics/morality all that stuff is the golden rude. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Where does this state that "others" only applies to humans? Because we have greater cognitive thought than any other species, we can apply it this rule and extrapolate it better. A lion really doesn't have an excuse for doing what it does. We don't need to. It's as simple as this: If you were a human female (I'm assuming you're a dude so sorry if I'm wrong), would you appreciate being raped and kept it constant pregnancy to produce milk for a different species, and then have your baby taken away that will get slaughtered for food? If the answer is no, why is it bad if it happens to a human but ok for a cow? Does the empathy really stop when you go across species lines? Do you not get upset when you hear about dog fighting and other animal abuses to "the cute ones"?
This is a great example. I've pointed out problems with the statements you claim are evidence for your 2nd and 3rd arguments (meat is unhealthy, and humans eating meat is unnatural), so you've pivoted back to the ethics angle. Which would be fine if I wasn't concerned you'll go right back to asserting the 2nd and 3rd arguments again without regard to the problems previously raised with both once the thread went on a bit further.
Regarding the prefix in front of omnivore, it doesn't matter in this case because either one doesn't have to worry about food-related diseases from plants or meat. We eat meat at the cost of our health. This is proven over and over again. You still haven't shown any citations to refute the work at nutritionfacts.org for example. A website funded by donations from anyone like Wikipedia, and run by Dr. Michael Gregor, who takes the most recent peer-reviewed science and makes videos out of them for the lay person to understand. He's vegan.
... (from another post) ...
The inuit people have a much lower life span than average.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457208
I would put the 7th day Adventists, who are strict vegetarians in California with an average span of about 89 years over them any day.
But look where your argument is going: a tribe of people in a much more exotic locale. I'm talking about first world places like America, where produce abounds on every street corner.
I see you didn't read, or forgot, or decided to disregard, my post up thread about the 7th day adventists. Not all 7 day adventists are vegans. Some are vegetarians, some are pescetarians (fish eaters), some occasionally eat red meat, and some eat meat regularly. Comparing the death rates across these five groups within the same population (so same environment, a lot of the same genetics and behavioral factors), the fish eaters have the lowest risk of death, vegetarians and occasional red meat eaters are about the same, and vegans and regular meat eaters have the highest rates of mortality.*
This also leaves aside the other four populations around the world with the longest lifespans, all of whom eat some meat (although less than the standard american). Again, this was already posted upthread.
*See Table 7 of this paper:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s/T7.expansion.htmlPlease prove me wrong by going up to a cow and literally tearing into it with your bare hands like other carnivores or omnivores would do. Good luck with that. Would be nice to see what happens when the animal has a chance to fight back.
Surely you'll allow me a rock or a stick? After all, chimpanzees and ravens and sea otters all use tools at at least that level.
You could never be "Trained" to chase down and kill a rabbit in the wild unless the thing was completely tired out or something. In the open, you aren't fast enough. That's why we need all these stupid tricks to be able to hyperinflate ourselves on the food chain. Even if you did catch the rabbit, are you going to eat it straight down to the bone like other animals? Doubt it.
Again, this was discussed up thread. The way a human being would hunt a rabbit in the absence of any tools is
persistence hunting which would indeed end with the rabbit completely tired out and exhausted. The same method used by our ancestors for literally hundreds of thousands of years until the development of the throwing spear made ambush hunting more feasible.
Over a long enough distance, on a hot day, human beings can run practically any other animal on the planet to exhaustion, including cheetahs.*
*Note that in this case the villagers who ran down the cheetah who was eating their goats didn't kill it but turned it over to the local wildlife service for relocation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24953910In regards to the atherosclerosis request, well done. Your 2 examples were literally the 2 most popular pets we humans keep and have full control over their diet. I meant more so show me a carnivore/omnivore in the wild that was shown to have died from artery clogging.
Indeed. It could well be argued that the prevalence of atherosclerosis in domesticated animals is an indication that the standard american diet isn't particularly healthy for either us or our companion animals. However, your specific argument up thread was was animals adapted to eat meat cannot get atherosclerosis, therefore the fact that humans do means we are not adapted to eat meat. Cats, at least, are complete obligate carnivores, so the fact that they can indeed develop this condition, regardless of diet, would seem to indicate there are other potential mechanisms that can produce this condition because an animal that doesn't "naturally" eat meat deciding to start eating it.
At least we can agree on frugality if nothing else...but I'm sure the idea of saving most of your income and riding a bike to work seemed crazy at one point too, until you opened your mind a bit.
So here the argument appears to be: $X seemed crazy until you thought about it, therefore anything that doesn't make sense must be true, even if you think about it and still think it doesn't make sense.
But since cob is out of this thread now, maybe this can be my last post of the subject?