How do you explain us having eyes in the front of our heads, an adaptation that allows for depth perception, where as herbivores normally have eyes on the sides of their heads (with a few exceptions) so that they can have a greater field of vision (the exceptions being herd animals or animals with an offensive defense against predators, such as rhinos and the like), or how about incisors? Teeth designed to cut meat. If we were herbivores we wouldn't need incisors (or canines for that matter), or the presence of both large and small intestines, one being needed to deal with meat, the other for dealing with plant matter.

''With few exceptions''. There being exceptions of traits like depth perception and position of eyes, I'm simply going to assume we are part of that exception.

Incisors or not; will you please agree to me, that our teeth are flat? (With the exception of ''canines'' but I'll come to them.) Flat teeth are never present in predators, since flat teeth cannot bite through raw meat.

Our ''canines'', as we like to call them, are not for biting through meat - that would require our whole mouth full of 'em. They are to bite through hard fruits.

Our intestines cannot properly digest meat. It destroys our bodies. We have a long digestive system, which means raw meat would rot before it is defecated.


Anyway, even if we were omnivores, which I am pretty sure we are not, I would still refrain from eating meat. Because the conditions in modern farming is simply not natural in any way. Animals are not treated anywhat with the respect they deserve.

Actually, no, depth perception is only needed for very large creatures (elephants, giraffes), or for for predatory creatures, because prey animals need to see as much as possible to know if they are being hunted, predators need depth perception to know how close they are, so they know if they are close enough to attack.

Ok, um, first, bite your tongue. I'm pretty sure you will feel points on your molars, if we were purely plant eaters as you claim, then there wouldn't be points. Plus, saying that because modern humans, who are thousands of years removed from eating raw meat that would need sharper teeth, have dull teeth, we must never have eaten meat...

Excuse me for asking this, but, are you retarded?

And, no, you are wrong, our canines ARE for eating meat. If we didn't eat meat there would be no need for canines. Try to name ONE herbivore with canines. Thats right, you can't, because there isn't one. One of the main ways we classify unknown animals as herbivores/carnivores/omnivores, is through teeth, or to be more correct, tooth type. Herbivores DON'T have incisors. They don't. Period, end of story. We do, proof positive.

And yet again, wrong. Try doing this magical thing called reading, if you do that you'll find that with out exception, herbivores are missing the large intestine, in fact, when dissecting a new creature, the intestines are one of the main ways we use to classify the creature as a herbivore or omnivore/carnivore.

The "rotting" is actually part of the digestive process. Bacteria in our intestines help break down food products into things that we can deal with more easily (aided by stomach acids and enzymes produced both by our bodies and by bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract), which you find in ALL animals (even fish).

And animals in nature are given respect? The natural way for most herbivores to die is being eaten alive by predators that don't give a crap how much it hurts, only that their bellies are being filled.

I don't really care for this discussion, when it has come to name-calling from your side.

Allow me to answer your last thing.
Yes, animals are treated with respect in the nature. They live a great life, and every once in a while, a predator needs food, so it kills. It's sad, but that's how it is. We breed animals up, keep them locked behind bars for whole lifes, slaughter them. And for what reason? Don't say survival. Even if we assume you are correct in all of your argumentation (which I most definately do not think you are) the way we breed animals are not natural. I am against hunting myself, but it is indeed a better alternative than buying meat.


Also, just so you have something to think about;
Why do you think we can have a too high level of colestorol? Why do you think our bodies get acidic when we eat animal protein? Why do you think there is not one observable good thing happening to our bodies when we eat animal products?

If you cannot at least fake a respect for my participation in this debate, then I am out. (Awh who am I kidding? No I'm not, but I would prefer not to be called retarded though.)