Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'd conclude by analyzing the data presented, that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more beneficial to humanity. The only significant reason for eating meat that remains, in my opinion, is the fact that meat tastes good; however, how many people would support placing animals in pits and having them fight to the death? Not many. Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

 

[russ_watters]

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's...

Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.

 

[JPD]

I'd conclude by analyzing the data presented, that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more beneficial to humanity. The only significant reason for eating meat that remains, in my opinion, is the fact that meat tastes good; however, how many people would support placing animals in pits and having them fight to the death? Not many. Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

What a weak argument. How about people sourcing meat properly from properly raised livestock that roam the land and have a (as much as possible) stress-free life.
Sorry vegetarians and vegans - the arguments you bring forward might be enough to make you feel great about yourselves (this seems to be important to you - a sense of self-importance) but they don't wash with us meat eaters. Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

 

[JPD]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives? The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.
This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.
You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.

 

[learningphysics]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

 

[JaeSun]

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

that argument is weak ...

if you have kids, then what gives you the right to tell them what they can and can't do, etc?

its not saying that anyone can and can't do, but its the basic rights of everyone to be able to live and do as they please within a set standard ... a policeman stopping a criminal is different from me telling you what you should eat ... a policeman is enforcing a known good ... as in regards to telling someone your beliefs, that's different ...

if you want to speak out against it, go ahead .. just don't go preaching to everyone and telling them what to do as that is taking a step too far ...

 

[Seafang]

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)


this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143


finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm


so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.

You watch pure herbivores eat and you find that they do it pretty much all day long. The food value of what they eat is so poor that they have to eat tons of it. we gain the upper hand by letting them do the hard work and then eating them. Otherwise we would spend all our time eating low level foods too.

The food crops we grow are more nutritious than what ruminants eat, but it costs us hugely in the form of fossil fuel energy to enjoy either those better plant foods or the meat that we produce likewise with energy input.

The six billion people on Earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.

since we are not omnivorous via comparative anatomy (see last link, for instance, in post #900 which refers to the Mills article), we can only claim to be omnivorous via action which is a bit like saying because we can be airborne on a plane, we can fly.

so given that we are not omnivorous as the articles and explanations explain, i probably for that reason didn't bother to address that particular point of yours. however, in certain areas where it is very difficult to access suitable plant foods, humans do eat creatures that can process the existing vegetation (but the anatomy of these humans really doesn't change because of doing so).

The six billion people on Earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.

considering it takes a lot less energy to grow crops than cattle, it would be far easier to feed the planet on a veg diet. one of the 3 main arguments for vegness is the environmental factor.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.

so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology? do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts?

Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous (because they are considerably different from true carnivores like cats - see merck veterinary manual for instance http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/182800.htm) although bears provide a more classic example of this group (see mills' comparative anatomy article).

Comparing our teeth to a dogs and a cows and then saying that "they fall right in the middle" (whatever that means), hardly provides an argumentative basis for concluding that humans are omnivorous (it is through this sort of selectively qualitative, emotive and handwaving pseudo-conclusive statement-making that the rumour about humans being omnivores still persists).

in fact, if you actually do compare as Mills does on the criteria of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon as well as facial muscles, jaw type, jaw joint location, jaw motion, jaw muscles, mouth opening vs headsize, teeth (incisors, canines, molars), chewing, saliva, stomach type, stomach acidity, stomach capacity, length of intestine, liver, kidney, nails - it becomes pretty obvious that the human anatomy lines up with that of the herbivores. here is the Mills link again:
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

if you want to dispute any of the analyses presented by Mills, then by all means try to do so (you may find some ammunition if you look at McArdle's stuff). however, simply saying "your info is wrong" isn't a particularly substantial contribution.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

but jpd, why in that case, are you telling dooga and learningphysics what they should or should not do? why do you attempt to violate their right to post what they want to?

The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.

if you would look at the nutritional info provided throughout the thread and beyond, you would see that veg diets are not imbalanced at all.

This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.

are you telling them what to do again or are you providing them with valuable advice on how to conduct their affairs?

You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.

it seems you've had some bad experiences with a veg or two. unfortunately, since you get sick in a psychological sense, you may have difficulty in hearing what they actually say.

for instance, look at what dooga wrote:
if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?
he hasn't said that meat eaters are cruel people.
what his question suggests is that anyone who doesn't support cruelty probably wouldn't support the practises that go into producing meat and it seems to be based on unaccusatory logic. in fact, we've had several pro-meaters throughout this thread indicate that they do not support the cruelty that is inherent to the meat industry.

in friendship,
prad

 

[rgoudie]

Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

Probably the same presumptions that give you the right to tell other species how to live and die.

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

if you want to speak out against it, go ahead .. just don't go preaching to everyone and telling them what to do as that is taking a step too far ...

Imagine, then, if veggies collected the entire lot of you meat-eaters and held you all hostage in pens. Would that be taking it an insane step too far? Well, this is what arrogant humans have done, and are doing, with a number of species. This is not really a question of beliefs, such as I love Pepsi and you love Coke, or I belief in this religion and you believe in that religion, or not. Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possesses the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit. Who are you to decide that it is just to hold every single chicken hostage?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

i eat meat and I am proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

So, you must admit that you could not care less about the plight of the life forms that often suffer so that you can have quick access to your favourite carcass?

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ...

Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience.

-Ray.

 

[russ_watters]

Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possesses the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit.

Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

 

[russ_watters]

so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology?

No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority.

do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts?

"all"? I don't know - the question is apparently under some debate.

Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous...

Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/speaker5.html

It is only in recent years, since commercial dog food has become a multi-billion dollar business, that we refer to our domestic
carnivores as omnivores. Why? What changed their status? They still have teeth like a wolf, long sharp canines for tearing
flesh, and solid molars and strong jaws for crushing bones. They still have the same simple mono-gastric digestive system
of a wolf; not suited, as an omnivore or herbivore, for breaking down and digesting plant proteins.

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/catsaredif.html is a site you may (or may not) like:

To begin with we must get a good grip on two terms . . . carnivore and omnivore. The cat is considered by scientists to be a strict carnivore and the dog is considered to be an omnivore. Both species are in the Class Mammalia and the Order Carnivora, but here’s the difference: The cat cannot sustain its life unless it consumes meat in some form. Dogs, however, are able to survive on plant material alone; they do not have to consume meat. But always keep in mind that dogs do best and by nature are primarily meat-eaters. Just because by definition they are omnivores (can digest and utilize plant and animal food sources) does not mean that plant material alone makes a good source of nutrition for the dog. Far too many dogs have been undernourished by those cheap grain-based dog foods. And grain-based cat foods are even worse!

So a good way to think of it is that cats are carnivores, dogs are omnivores, but they both have evolved as hunters of other animals in keeping with their nature as meat-eaters.

The trouble with this site is it slices the definition of "omnivore" a little thin (a lot of sites do this). Basically, you may, if you wish, call a dog an "omnivore," but that doesn't change the fact that it is still primarily a meat-eater.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat. It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians. Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority.

i also included mcardle's profession. frankly, i don't see how being a cardiologist gives Roberts a position of authority - but you jump to the conclusion that i do.

Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?

well i did quote the merck vet manual. the idea that dogs are omnivores does appear in many other places. however, debating whether they are or aren't is hardly the issue here especially considering that Mills uses the bear as his 'classic' omnivore.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat.

well that's fine except that many dogs certainly don't eat meat and since their health and lifespans are not adversely affected (quite the contrary in fact), it doesn't necessarily follow that they should eat meat. (again, that's not what's on the table here though).

It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians.

well it's not really a flaw since doggies have by your own research been found to be omnivorous. however, the example used in Mills article isn't a dog but a bear:

This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.

like what russ? their claws and their teeth? their ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket?

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

like what russ? their claws and their teeth? the ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket?

From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

Among the traits:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.
-Eyes: in front like carnivores.
-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.
-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).
-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.
-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat. I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.

 

[Kingofthedamned]

if the world all suddenly turned to not eating meat low iron levels would be the next anorexia. many people that do eat meat still have low iron levels...humans are animals and we have eaten meat for so long that we are connsidered part of the food cycle...it's the same as forcing all of the lions to become "vegie's" it would completely ruin the eco system opf the area. those of you in australia would have heared about the pair of 5 meter sharks in SA...and the argument about if they should be killed or not...and the main concern is that once these "heads" of the eco system are wiped out that the rest of the cycle will fall apart...nature is about balance..i'm not saying that humans don't unbalance it because they do what I'm saying is that humans need to find the balance between all meat and all vegies...buy all of us turning to vegies we would be going from one extreme to an other...personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

 

[JPD]

but jpd, why in that case, are you telling dooga and learningphysics what they should or should not do? why do you attempt to violate their right to post what they want to?


if you would look at the nutritional info provided throughout the thread and beyond, you would see that veg diets are not imbalanced at all.


are you telling them what to do again or are you providing them with valuable advice on how to conduct their affairs?


it seems you've had some bad experiences with a veg or two. unfortunately, since you get sick in a psychological sense, you may have difficulty in hearing what they actually say.

for instance, look at what dooga wrote:
if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?
he hasn't said that meat eaters are cruel people.
what his question suggests is that anyone who doesn't support cruelty probably wouldn't support the practises that go into producing meat and it seems to be based on unaccusatory logic. in fact, we've had several pro-meaters throughout this thread indicate that they do not support the cruelty that is inherent to the meat industry.

in friendship,
prad

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?

 

[JPD]

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

 

[JPD]

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

No, assuming that you know better then everyone else, and think you know how to tell others what they should and shouldn't eat is - it is none of your business.

 

[JPD]

if the world all suddenly turned to not eating meat low iron levels would be the next anorexia. many people that do eat meat still have low iron levels...humans are animals and we have eaten meat for so long that we are connsidered part of the food cycle...it's the same as forcing all of the lions to become "vegie's" it would completely ruin the eco system opf the area. those of you in australia would have heared about the pair of 5 meter sharks in SA...and the argument about if they should be killed or not...and the main concern is that once these "heads" of the eco system are wiped out that the rest of the cycle will fall apart...nature is about balance..i'm not saying that humans don't unbalance it because they do what I'm saying is that humans need to find the balance between all meat and all vegies...buy all of us turning to vegies we would be going from one extreme to an other...personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

Indeed, the gaps become filled through time.

 

[rgoudie]

Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply.

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

nature is about balance...

personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us...all we need is balance.

Your message was well received. I agree with you 100% that balance is what is missing. Do you believe that it is balanced to hoard entire species of animals for the sake of profit and convenience?

-Ray.

 

[rgoudie]

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home. You buy your meat from your local supermarket just like most other meat-eaters. If you actually did go out and hunt your own food, then you would have appended such to your response.
Please, dispense with the insincere indignation.

Could you explain how clear is my lack of awareness?

-Ray.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would disagree with the ecosystem comment. I would assume evolution and adaptation would eliminate that problem. If our ecosystem requires death, should we not manipulate our ecosystem so it doesn't? We have innumerable amounts of ways to kill things, with that kind of intelligence I'm sure we could adjust our environment to minimize killing.

Concerning the freedom arguement, governments founded on ideologies of freedom have restrictions. Freedom is considered inappropriate when it infringes upon the freedoms of another being.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - I'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of (unintended, I'm sure) hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply.

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray.

Rights were created by humans, for humans, and since the default position is never to assume something exists without evidence, your attempt at burden-of-proof shifting doesn't fly. As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of animal rights is a relatively new thing, so it is you who needs to substantiate why we should change the existing paradigm.

Since I don't feel like going through the entire argument, though, I'll just say that the theory of rights that is in use today comes mostly from Locke and it makes no mention of animal rights.

I wasn't setting you up - are you playing a game here or are you going to try to defend your position?

edit: and I missed this before:

Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience.

How new, precisely, is this practice? 15,000 years?

 

[physicsisphirst]

From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm

i'm glad you did look up mcardle's stuff. he presents a reasonable argument for some things in that article. however, it isn't nearly as thorough as Mills. i already established that mcardle is a vegetarian in post #900 - do you feel that you are adding some sort of credibility by saying "from a vegitarian" here?

let's look at the traits you have dug up and the interpretations you apply to them:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.

the teeth are designed for a wide variety of foods - but exactly which of the teeth are designed to eat meat? surely you are not suggesting that it be the dimunitive canines which find their ability tested to the limit ripping open the cellophane which wraps the meat hunted down at the supermarket? can it be the molars? i think not since the jagged canivore molars tend to slice rather than grind like ours.
so just which teeth are so well designed to help us eat meat?

-Eyes: in front like carnivores.

carnivorous fish have eyes that are not in front.
whales have eyes that are not in front.
reptiles have eyes that are not in front.
some birds have eyes that are not in front.
now are there any veg creatures that have eyes in the front? how about a woodchuck? or a gorilla? are there others?

-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.

i don't see too many folk using their brains to catch prey. in fact, it takes more brains to grow crops than to chase after live animals in the wild or dead ones in the supermarket.

-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).

i see you haven't paid much attention to the Mills article. here again is the link: http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm
i guess it might be a good idea for me to actually pull some stuff from it for presentation here.

-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.

that is not a contribution to comparative anatomy. it has no validity here and tries for justification via the "we do" therefore "we are" fallacy.

-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

only as a delicacy.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat.

it is not a diversion at all. you are all hung up on this morality thing. the topic is "should we eat meat?" not "is it moral to eat meat?". what is happening here is that you are being shown that humans are not really designed to do too good a job with meat. this is being done via comparative anatomy (and this of course explains why several diseases result from these practices - and this will be covered, again, later).
why do you want to crawl into that morality-argument shell for apparent protection - rather than dealing with things on a physiological (and eventually medical) level?

I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.

then you have not seen posts #765 & #769 where it was shown that oneeye's creation (which you lauded) didn't create a contradiction.
you may also want to look at cogito's post #883 and try dealing with the predicament he has revealed 'your' position has.
everyone of your questions have been answered and by various people - you may have just overlooked the posts. however, ask again by all means!

in friendship,
prad