fchan

I'm a furry.

I'm a vocal animal rights activist.

I believe that meat tastes good.

I was raised on a farm and believe strongly in "animal husbandry". Raise your animal well, treat it kindly, kill it humanely, and strongly favor bacon or sausage when filling out your cut sheet (steak is over-rated).

Incidentally, I DO avoid eating meat because the American meat industry is not exactly kind to its animals (nor safe in handling their meat). And there are a number of fast food joints that I've joined in outright boycoting. But if I can get my hands on something raised localy/free-range I'm a happy omnivore.

Our teeth are omnivore in structure, it's illogical to not eat animals even if you believe in animal rights because animals eat each other. Vegetarians remind me of PETA on South Park, all the lions get fed Tofu. Now refusing to eat meat from certain farms or factory farms is a whole other deal.

>>5 "well, animals don't know any better, but we do"

Actually, that's not valid because it's a circular argument -- it defines "better" as "being vegetarian", and the reason it is "better" is because "we know better."  It provides no evidence as to why being vegetarian is actually better.

I'm not saying that there aren't perfectly valid arguments for being vegetarian, just that that's not one you'd want to take to a debate, unless your goal is to be laughed at.

I am a vegetarian.

For me it is not a moral choice, but merely one of life. I was raised on a specific diet that did not include meat. Meat to me both tastes wrong, has a terrible texture, and makes me physically ill. I am not adapted to processing it.

However, I have no problems with those around me eating it. I will even happily cook it for others. Just do not expect me to partake of the feast in total.

>>9

When did I say I was deciding for others?

While morality is . . .

Know what? Nevermind. You are a comprehension-impaired individual and I have better people to discuss dietary ethics with.

>>11

I am the one making the arguement about morals.

-Personal- morals. The arguement is about what the vegetarian feels is right, personally, and does not necessarially extend to you.

Even if it did (and for the more vocal vegetarians it does), you don't have to agree with him. But to challenge his *right* to judge you- that is to say, to have an *opinion* about the kind of person that you are or an *opinion* regarding how people should act- is rediculous. A person doesn't need anyone's permission to hold their own beliefs, even harsh ones.

I am correcting you as a courtesy. If it goes to waste I won't waste the keystrokes a second time.

>It's a fairly common stereotype that furries tend to be vegetarian,

It is?

>>15  Er, pardon my stupid.

s/an oxymoron/redundant

>>17
So, we have sharp teeth for shredding meat (our front teeth are not blunt -- they're wide on one axis and narrow on another, like a razor or a knife), and we have blunt rear teeth for grinding plants. Sounds omnivorous to me!

I eat meat because I respect nature. Yes, you read that right. Nature designed humans as omnivores, and I'm not arrogant enough to presume to know better than nature what I should be eating. That's my belief anyway, and I bear no ill-will to vegetarians, so long as they don't get all holier-than-thou about it.

See, this is the primary issue. It's not just that someones personal belief leads them to assume they know better than nature but then they go on to say that anyone who doesn't do what they do is ignorant. Everyone wants everyone else to follow their way of life.

If someone wants to be a vegetarian I have no issue with it but don't try to confront me and tell me i'm wrong for eating meat with some half-assed opinions and theories that you spent all of 10 minutes concocting.

>>19
Using soap? Animals wash all the time, soap is just a more efficient way of doing it. Condoms or sex toys? Never bought either of them, don't intend to -- for me to have sex with someone requires a long-term, committed relationship at which point condoms have become moot. Clothes? Where they're not needed for protection from the environment, I've never really seen the point. Medicine? Many people with pet dogs or cats know that when these animals have an upset stomach, they eat grass. In other words, they don't feel good so seek out and consume a specific plant -- guess where many medicines come from. Presuming to knowing better than nature is our specialty? ...No argument, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

>>21
So a horse's teeth are superficially similar. So what? We're apes. Most apes have diets that consist primarily of fruits, vegetables, and insects. Of course they'll be similar. But note that humans have teeth with points, too. So do our closest living relatives, the common chimpanzee. They have been observed to hunt and consume other primates, and our dentition is much closer to theirs.

An obligate predator's teeth are shaped quite differently than ours, yes. They have little if any need to grind plant material. Therefore, the most effective tooth shape for them is very different than it is for one who has that need. Can you say "natural selection"?

Again, yes, we developed tools to butcher animals many years ago. So what? Do you really think ancient humans used a knife and fork like we do? No. Much more likely was that they cut off easily-managed chunks and tore into it with their teeth. It requires more energy to constantly cut off bite-sized pieces than it does to just rip a piece off with your teeth, and when you don't know where or when your next meal is coming, you conserved energy as much as possible.

Once more, yes, I do think that those who claim it is morally wrong to eat animals are exhibiting a disrespect to nature. However, it does not bother me. Why would it? It doesn't affect me in any way. I don't really care if they choose to exhibit that disrespect -- that's their business.

As for whether or not it's healthier... that's quite debatable. I've done a lot of research into proper diet, and the recommendation to consume some kind of animal product was nearly universal.

>>22

Only in that they're teeth. The shape and arrangement is utterly different. F'instance, humans don't have a huge gap between incisors and molars while equines do. A horse's  molars are a LOT different both in shape, size, number and arrangement and definitely meant to deal with vegetation.

If you actually do some research and look at what the people who know what they're talking about say, you'll see that human dentition is primarily designed for an omnivorous diet, albeit with evolutionary roots coming somewhat more from the vegetarian lifestyle side of things. Even then, the current set of chops we bear is meant to deal with meat along with veggies.

By the by; tools used to cut meat just make it easier, they're not a requirement for the task. Those incisors work damned well. I'm pretty sure that if lions were smarter and  had opposable thumbs, one of the first things they'd ask for is a nice set of cutlery.