I have seen alot of threads about eating meat or being vegitarian, here is my respone to the debate . first the bible says god gave man dominion over the earth and apparently in is for thought he gave us canaine teeth so we could consume these things and flourish. second if we subcribe to the theroy of evolutiononce again the law of the jungle simply states the biggest strongest and smartest of the species survives, once again we developed canaine teeth to cut and tear meat for our consumption. its that simple we are equipted to consume meat as well as veggies if we were supose to eat only sugar and carbs are mouths ould look like a honey bees.

Actually, God didn't permit man to eat meat until after the flood. Besides, we could eat meat without canines. Yes, the biggest and the strongest survives, in an evolutionary sense, but the elephant is bigger than you or I and they are vegetarians.

I am a carnivore but I just want to shoot some holes in your theory. Strengthen your debate. Scripturally, Adam and Eve were perfect humans with perfect health. They did not need meat. Even after they had sinned big time, they still had some of the benefits of perfection such as a very long life. This benefit lasted for quite some time. Noah lived to be in his 900s as a vegetarian. After the flood, man's physical weakness increased, hence there was a need to add meat to the menu That doesn't mean that vegetarianism is a poor dietary choice.

you shot no holes I said survival of the species ( man) not elephants and god condemed man in the garden there health started to fail at that point when man became mortal

Actually, the survival of the fittest has nothing to do with being the biggest or strongest at all. It has to do with mutation and adaptation in a particular environment. What is a good mutation in one environment could be disastrous in another. Environment is what drives the selection process.

Second, our canines are incisiform canines and not shaped like the canines you see in lots of other animals (i.e. lions, and gorillas). They are built to help with the cutting, not tearing of foods. Which does not contradict what you are saying-just wanted to let you know. However, gorillas do have huge canines and they are strict vegetarians-their canine size has more to do with their social structure then their diets. Most primates with huge canines have a harem social structure (baboons, mandrills, lemurs, gorillas...).

Gorillas have an extended gut in order to pull all the available nutrients out of plant materials. Something we cannot do. We don't digest cellulose (plant fiber) well at all. They are adapted to their folliverous environment.

Humans (and our direct ancestors) on the other hand are omniverous, dietary generalists and have been for at least 2 million years. Meat is a high quality food. You get more bang for your buck so to speak. More calories per gram than in plant foods. So, yes, we are evolutionarily adapted to a ominverious diet. So what? Darker skinned people are adapted to life near the equator, while lighter skinned people are adapted to more northern climates. Does that mean I shouldn't ever move closer to the equator? Modern humans more culturally adapt than biologically adapt to our environments now.

I am a vegetarian for personal reasons. Thanks for your input, but nothing you are going to say is all of the sudden going to make me become a meat eater again. I am very well aware of human evolutionary history, as it is what I do for a living.

As far as Judeo-Christian religious arguements go, it also states clearly in the Bible that we are not to eat pigs. If you are going to use the Bible to argue your position, I am assuming you don't eat sausage or pork. Other religions have different dietary requirements. Some demand vegetarian lifestyles, while others state that you shouldn't eat cows or kill any insects.

True, my point. But, as I said, man was not permitted to eat meat until after the flood. This was long after man was removed from the Garden of Eden. Man had canines while living in the Garden of Eden but he was a vegetarian.

B57

I am not going to argue for or against vegetarianism, but I wonder this. Why must so many constantly attempt to rip apart and argue against people who are vegetarians??? Being vegetarian isn't the anti atkins, it is just a different way of eating.

Being a low carber I get very frustrated by the constant insults and arguments against and etc for vegetarians, especially since being low carb and vegetarian aren't mutually exclusive.

I have never insulted meat eaters or told them to be vegetarian, this is just something I have decided for myself.

Why must I, as a fellow low carber, constantly hear these negative things about a personal lifestyle decision???

Because of a small group called PCRM, an offshoot of PETA. We actually have a sub-forum here dedicated to vegetarian low-carbers. However, in the past few months, PCRM started a campaign against Dr. Atkins and low-carb diets, with some idiotic claims, suche as low-carbing makes you impotent, meats cause cancer, etc. So the least low-carbers can do, is set them straight, and prove the fallacy of such idiotic claims.

In other words, this is directed against militant vegetarians, who think no one should eat anything but what fits their vegan lifestyle, which does effect our own personal lifestyle.

Wa'il

Tamarian, thanks for the reply. I understand that there are those out there who want everyone to eat the same way as them and follow their lifestyle. It just frustrates me to constantly hear reasons why my way of eating is a bad, illogical, stupid, etc choice.

Maybe it would be best if the people who started these posts would direct their comments to a specific group instead of directing it to all vegetarians, including low carbers.

I have to agree with etoiles here. It isn't that the PCRM is being argued against in many of these threads-it is vegetarians in general. The first post on this thread makes that pretty clear. I don't force my dietary preferences on other people, I would like the same respect shown to me. What difference does it make what the heck I choose to eat or not eat? I keep low carb and that is all that is required here.

I think a lot of low carbers see moral vegetarianism as being disapproving of our way of eating (one that is animal product rich). It's less that we disrespect vegetarianism in general, but it is more that we feel attacked by many of the more militant vegetarians (i.e. peta and pcrm).

Then that is their problem. I don't see the vegetarian people posting on this forum degrading or railing against those who choose to eat meat. There are a few vegetarians on this forum and none that I can see are the militant type. We are not Peta or PCRM. However, we seemed to be lumped together with them and targeted with ad hoc, bad science and/or illogical religious based arguments designed to put down our private dietary choices.

If you want to argue against PETA and the PCRM, go for it.

I belong to P.E.T.A.
people eating tasty animals

I don't necessarily approve of a lot of PETA's tactics, and I got a chuckle out of it the first 50 times I saw the bumpersticker, but how does quoting it add to the conversation?

I am really grateful for the vegetarian area. I realize that the anti-vegetarian posts don't originate with the founders or moderators of this forum. You guys rock.

As far as I know, the PCRM and/or PETA don't visit these forums, so I am not sure how we are setting anyone straight. Unless you mean that this forum is trying to make sure the members here don't get misinformation from the bad science the PCRM spouts. That I totally agree with. I have participated on some of those threads, against PCRM myself.

The posts that concern me and I think etoiles are not the ones against the PCRM or the ones against PETA, but the ones like this very thread.


This was not an argument against the PCRM, but a thread started to tell vegetarians they are wrong.

I still don't get it. This anti vegetarian thread is located on a LOW CARB forum. I'm thinking all the vegetarians reading this are LOW CARBING therefore, the argument against the PCRM is rather moot.

We're all low carbing. There are some of us who eat meat. Some who don't. Some low carbers eat broccoli. Some don't. Some use Splenda. Some use Stevia. Does any of this matter?

Low carb as you see fit. No one is trying to take your bacon away.