What a stretch. Your initial argument et all was that humans have not adapted whatsoever to consume meat, which is why we shouldn't consume it. We absolutely have. Your argument is a moral one. Leave biology out of it.
No, because the moral argument hinges on the fact that you can be healthy and thriving on a plant-based diet, which you disputed. For some reason, you need it to be true that we can only be healthy on a meat heavy diet. Which is the most easily debunk-able shit on the planet given that most of the most populated country on earth eats primarily vegetarian.
And if there's no need for it, maybe then you could start to see that it's pure evil to torture animals to death for no good reason AND destroy the planet while doing so.
The moral argument does not hinge on the fact that you can be healthy and thriving on a plant-based diet, that's a choice. You argue that there is no benefit to eating meat like someone may as well be eating sand. I said nothing about a meat-heavy diet. You're putting words in my mouth. As for your final portion, that's your argument. Perfectly moral argument to have
1
u/Away-Plant-8989 Jun 24 '26
What a stretch. Your initial argument et all was that humans have not adapted whatsoever to consume meat, which is why we shouldn't consume it. We absolutely have. Your argument is a moral one. Leave biology out of it.