Vegan reply to 'I rather eat meat than let it go to waste'

Reply to a person:

Emily Steer,
First of all it is a matter of ethics.

” Please let me be very clear: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case is rather dramatically demonstrating what I call our “moral schizophrenia” about animals. That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill over ten billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat—even those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting. There is no “need” for us to eat meat, dairy, or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering, and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

” Learn more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-note-about-michael-vick/#.UezrP234V5s

Second of all, even if we have the ability to kill animals doesn’t mean that it is morally justified. You could as well say ’Look we have canines, thus it is okay for meat to kill and eat humans’. Just because you have the ability to wage wars with your hands, thus mean that there is any moral justification to do this.

I recommend you to study this carefully to think more clearly about this issues: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UezWSm34V5t

”The animals are dieing anyway”. First of all you have the 58 billion of domesticated animals that are bred and killed only because of human demand and consumption. Then you have the more than 1000 billion marine animals that are killed and consumed only because of human demand and consumption, and these animals wouldn’t be hurt and killed. If the demand stopped  these fish wouldn’t be killed.

A vegan diet is very inexpensive. Eat a home-cooked starchbased diet (e.g. potatoes, rice, lentils, beans,etc.) with some vegetables and fruits: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

I also recommend this book which adresses many more counter-arguments: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Some of the arguments that you present were also used to defened human slavery. Those people doing animal agriculture right now, can easily transition to a plants only agriculture. They can easily become self-sustained on their own food.
An plants only vegan diet can feed all the world, and we can eliminate poverty and hunger: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

 

----

Reply to Emily that wrote [I didn't adress all the arguments. They are already earlier adressed in this blog or in the links above.] I just see it as a desperate attempt to justify a position that can't be morally justified. You throw out alot of arguments that can easily be refuted. You have those arguments and bring them up to try to still your consciousness that understand on a deep (but maybe not conscious) level that it is wrong to hurt and kill animals for food.:

 

 

 

·  Emily Steier I'd rather eat the meat than have it go to waste--- and nuts and beans and shit are getting more expensive by the day. o.o I'm by no means a twig, I'm a woman with decent curves, that doesn't mean I'm fat either. I just know that Humans were made to be omnivores-- that our canines are there for a reason. I'm not going to make fun of anyone's lifestyle but I'm just saying, the animals are dying anyway, why let their death be in vain? SAVE THE ANIMALS FROM THE DUMPSTER! EAT THEM! And then the price of everything else would go up. There wouldn't be enough farmland to grow enough to meet the supply. We would starve as a people and the animals will die anyway. Because there will be no need for them we'd have to dramatically cull their numbers, Farmers and families would be out of work, people who have herded cattle and died protecting their flock would be lost in vain. There is balance. There has to be balance. We have to hunt, have to kill, because as humans we're overpopulating can't have a lot of animals overpopulating as well so they'd have to be culled.. then what would happen to their bodies, what will feed that tiny little dog can't expect it to be able to survive on veggies, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores. If you can afford to eat vegan don't bash the people who cannot.

 

 

Vegan reply to: Is there a moral difference between eating animals compared to animal abuse/dog fighting

First of all, read this article:
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

As for the comparison with dog-fights:
The bottom line is clear: we all know that our meat involves suffering and killing. No one doubts that. So it’s not really even that those who consume animals don’t know about the suffering. Of course they do. Yes, there is a psychological difference between Michael Vick and someone who just consumes animal products and would never kill an animal herself, but that is a psychological difference, not a moral one.

From all accounts, Vicks treated his dogs in an appalling way. There is no doubt that many of them suffered a great deal. But frankly, the animals whose bodies many of us will eat tonight at dinner suffered every bit as much, if not a great deal more. Similarly, many people who consume meat object to hunting. When we ask them why they object given that they eat meat, dairy, eggs, etc., they often reply, “Because there’s something worse about killing the animal yourself. I would never be able to look at an animal and just shoot it with a bullet or an arrow.”

Again, that response identifies a psychological fact; not anything that is morally relevant. Indeed, the animal who is raised and killed to make the hamburger probably had, on balance, a much worse life than the animal killed by the hunter. So, although killing the animal in both situations is not necessary, if there is any difference between these two situations, it is that the former is actually worse because it involves more suffering.”

 Painless killing doesn’t occur of animals that are consumed for food. But it is still morally wrong. Why painlessly killing an animal for food harms an animal and is unethical:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

Also read this: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/being-vegan-is-not-personal-choice-it.html

Vegan reply to: 'Don't we have to solve human right issues before solving animal rights issues"?

But…Don’t we have to solve

human rights issues first?

 

“This is a frequently heard “But.” We explain the reasons why we cannot justify consuming animal products and someone asks, “Yes but what about

the problem of battered women?” This is no different than discussing the problem of the inadequate response of the legal system to the problem of battered women, only to have someone respond, “But what about the problem of pedophilia?” There is always something else that could be addressed! And we note that when we ask people who ask this question what they are doing to address human rights issues that they claim are more important than the issue of animal exploitation on which we

are working, nine times out of ten, the answer is usually that they aren’t doing anything. But in the event that you are one of those people who really is concerned about and devoting time, money, or energy to human rights problems, we want to explore this “But” further.

 

There is, of course, implicit in this question the notion that humans matter more in a moral sense than do animals and so we should be focusing on human problems and not animal problems. As we stated at the outset, we aren’t going to challenge

the conventional wisdom that although animals matter morally, humans matter more. [My comment: The authors don’t believe this is the case, but this is a notion that they don’t refute in this book, but in other books.] Yet this “But” still goes nowhere.

First, no one is asking that anyone stop working on or being concerned about human rights issues. On the contrary, we agree that there is a terrible amount of racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, and all sorts of other injustice, and we think it’s great that people care about and work on these issues.

 

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about in this book, which is simply that if you agree that animals matter at all, you are committed to not consume them any longer? The answer is nothing. Even if you think that any and all human rights issues are more important than the issue of animal exploitation, you have to eat while you are fighting for those great causes. How does eating, for example, tofu instead of steak impede your ability to fight for human rights causes? It doesn’t. If anything, a healthy vegan diet will give you more energy to pursue those causes.

And that’s where this analysis comes in. So you just leave your morning meeting with the local child protection agency in connection with your efforts to get better protection for kids and you want to grab something for lunch. Where is the conflict between you and the cow that justifies your having a hamburger? Indeed, if you have the burger, then you have just, by your action, rejected the principle that you claim to accept: that inflicting suffering on animals requires a moral justification.

You don’t have one.

 

Second, even if you are only concerned about human rights issues, you ought to be concerned about animal exploitation as well because it is directly connected to a significant human rights issue. As we discussed earlier, the amount of resources required to produce animal foods is multiples of what is required to produce plant

foods. Although there are certainly political issues that hamper the distribution of food, it is also the case that animal agriculture and a diet of animal foods is increasingly a threat to world hunger, our water supply, our topsoil, etc”

 

Quote from http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Violence anywhere, hurts everyone, everywhere. We have a moral obligation to fight against all violence and discrimination. Just because someone is of a different species, doesn't mean that the injustices and suffering that they are experiencing are less important.

 

It is our moral obligation to not inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon non-human animals, i.e. go vegan. I recommend you to read the article and linked pages on this website:

Vegan reply to: 'I get sick if I don't eat meat'

Reply to people claiming that they get sick if they don't eat meat.

You get sick if you eat the wrong food. All animal foods are unhealthy. See research provided in previous post. You can be healthy eating a starch-based diet with vegetables and fruits. There is plenty of research showing this. Homo sapiens have a common biology and it is well-known that we don’t need any meat.

We have NONE genetic adaptations for meat consumption:
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.

Or digestive tract is longer than carnivores, so that our food can stay in the body longer so we can digest plant matter. We need more surface area and we need more microbes.
Quote: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
-----


“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)"

Quote: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.UdaSUm3BJxU

More health recommendations by Dr. John McDougall: http://www.drmcdougall.com/
---

It is false that we need animal protein. It is even contradicted by the extremly conservative Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association). It is also contradicted by millions of healthy vegans. It is also contradicted by the research referred to in this documentary: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

---
Ethical argument:
Here’s the problem: at least 99.99% of animal use, which results in the suffering and death of animals, is unnecessary! At least 99.99% of animal use is for food, but humans can easily get their nutrition from plants.

Reply to an excuse not to be vegan: 'The inuits can't be vegan?

When discussing veganism, some people start asking 'What about the inuits'?

 

Here are some good responses:

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Dave Watt: First of all, your assertion is false. The Inuits have a great deal of their food shipped in and have been doing so for some years now. Second, even if your assertion were true, it would, at best, make animal use excusable. It would not make animal use justifiable. Third, even if your assertion were true, itr would be completely irrelevant to the 99.99% of the population that chooses to eat animal foods.

Yesterday at 4:53pm · Like · 3

NZ Vegan May I suggest to Dave and Fjaton that they stop worrying about the Inuit people and start focusing on themselves.

"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself" - Tolstoy said that.

If YOU care about animals, Dave and Fjaton, and YOU are experiencing some kind of troubled thoughts about what is happening to them, the first step is for YOU to stop doing it to them. If you didn't care then you wouldn't be here asking these questions.

 

Sarah K. Woodcock If I were an Inuit person, I would be offended that a caricature of my ethnicity was constantly being used as an excuse to justify the exploitation and murder of billions of sentient beings per year.

 

Sarah K. Woodcock Fjaton Lukos, did you know Professor Francione just published a book which addresses the sorts of questions you are asking? I highly recommend it:

www.EatLikeYouCareBook.com

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply to 'Does the world has enough arable farmland to provide adequate nutrition for 7 billion people'?

In USA alone 800 million People could be fed by the food that 'livestock' is fed with today:

'From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.
Quote:  
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

More articles on the same topic:

Is a vegan diet sustainable in colder countries, Sweden ,Norway, etc?

Cause of the injustices in Bangladesh, e.g. in garment factories, and the solution to end poverty and starvation

For references:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
http://www.ncifap.org/issues/environment/

----
More thoughts:
PaulYork AnimalRights Dustin, if you look at the most thorough scientific report on the subject, Livestock's Long Shadow, which is online, it reveals that 11x more arable land and water is use to grow feedcrops to produce meat than a comparable amount of veggies -- meaning that we can feed many times more people by switching to a plant-based diet. It could solve world hunger easily, but all those resources are being wasted to produce a relatively small amount of food, at great expense to the environment and human health -- so meat-eating is wasteful and elitist. Then there is the fact that it is #1 cause of increased risk of pandemic disease, that could wipe humanity out. To eat animals is to be against humanity and human rights because of health, global warming, water waste, pandemic disease, world hunger. From a purely humanistic perspective it is a terrible crime. That is why the IPCC and UN both strongly recommend elimination of meat from human diets, and plant-based protein instead.

-------------

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply to 'Doesn't God want us to eat animals'

Vegans are claiming it is wrong to inflict unnecssary suffering and death, and thus we can't justify consuming animals, since we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.

"Even if you believe that you have a soul and animals don’t, and that we ought to prefer the interests of a human in any situation in which we must choose— that is, in any situation of legitimate conflict— that gets us right back to the fact that when you are deciding what to eat tonight , there is no conflict. There is only a choice. If you choose the animal product, you are participating in suffering and death in the absence of any sort of conflict or compulsion. Your only justification is that you enjoy consuming animal products or that it is more convenient for you to do so.

Think about it this way. Imagine that Michael Vick were to say that dog fighting was okay because dogs don’t have souls. Would you buy that? Imagine that Vick says God wants us to fight dogs because they don’t have souls. Would you buy that? You would respond to Vick that God’s creating us in God’s image means that in situations of conflict between human and nonhumans, we ought to protect the human interest over the animal interest. So in the situation in which a person is in a true emergency situation , such as being in a situation where she is starving to death with no plant foods to eat, it would make sense for a religious person to say that God wants her to kill and eat an animal and that she ought to do so. But saying that God wants us to eat animal foods when we are not in that sort of emergency situation is no different from saying that God wants us to fight dogs. If you would find the latter to be objectionable—outrageous perhaps— you should find the former so as well.

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 569-570). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.
Quote: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

There is no ethical justification at all of taking the life of a sentient being: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Vegan reply to 'We are at top of the food chain, thus we should eat meat'

What food chain? This “But” is another way of asking whether our power and ability to exploit animals makes it morally right to do so. We would immediately see the problem if this “But” were raised in a context involving humans. For example, it was once argued that white western Europeans were naturally superior to Africans because the former were able to enslave the latter. There is no such thing out there as a “food chain.” It’s a concept that we have devised so that we can make our exploitation of animals look as though it has some basis in the natural world . It doesn’t. The proclamation that we are at the top of the food chain is equivalent to a proclamation that we are capable of oppressing and exploiting all of the other species on the planet. That may be true but it carries no moral significance. Are humans different from nonhumans? Certainly. Do humans have abilities that nonhumans lack? Certainly. But animals have all sorts of abilities that humans don’t have. Yes , humans can write symphonies (although most don’t by the way). But birds can fly without being in an airplane and fish can breathe under water without an air tank. What, apart from our self-interested proclamation, makes animal abilities worth less as a moral matter than human abilities?

The answer: nothing. But at the outset, we promised you that we were not going to challenge that bit of conventional wisdom that holds that although animals matter morally , they don’t matter morally as much as humans do. Our conventional wisdom holds that even if animals matter less, they matter some, and hurting or killing them requires a justification. Responding to the need for such a justification by saying that we are at the top of some non-existent chain is a way of saying that it’s okay to hurt and kill animals without any moral justification. And that’s just a way of saying that you don’t think that animals matter at all morally and that we can make them suffer and kill them just because we are able to do so. Actually, if you stop and think about it for a minute, you’ll see that our power and ability to exploit nonhuman animals gives us the responsibility to protect them from exploitation!

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1249-1253). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Vegan reply to 'Vegans avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities'

My reply to Kenneth, covering also the issue 'I am not a vegan/strict vegetarian because that human rights are more important than animal rights'

I think that everyone understand the moral difference between uprooting a plant and killing an animal. If we saw someone abusing an animal we would step in and protect the animal, if someone is stepping on, or cutting grass, or cutting down a tree, we don’t believe this is harming any sentient being.

Learn more in this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/#.UciBjJxW6nk
The people who still believe that plants are sentient, can eat of the seeds and the fruits without uprooting any plant.
You will find further reading here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

Eating animals is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering and death upon sentient beings. You already agree with the premise that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. The only reason that you don’t apply this to eating is because of cultural indoctrination.
“You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing”
I do certainly not ignore other problems of our society. Since I became a vegan I have actually become more aware of all the violence and discrimination in our society and I do more to fight against it compared to before.
There is no contradiction between fighting for human rights and fighting for animal rights. You go vegan and you choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, you substitute your animal products with a vegan diet, etc. It is very easy. You can continue to fight for human rights. A vegan lifestyle is not limiting, and it is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle, and it is our moral obligation to the nonhuman animals.

Furthermore, there is a big interconnection between all the violence and discrimination in our society: The enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Furthermore, while I believe that it is immoral to consume animal products, I do not judge peoples intentions and their character. For me it took almost 28 years to realize that the necessity and our moral obligation to be a vegan, and that consuming is unethical.

I don’t need a biological degree to understand that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals; and I will certainly not accept justifications such as ‘other animals eats animals and we are at the top of the food chain’, since both those arguments are easily refutable.
Cheers and best wishes
-------------
This is a reply to:
"Anders, aside from photosynthesizing plants and bacteria, all life exists by consuming other life - has this ever occurred to you? A vegan also is extinguishing life in order to survive. I am sure you are a nice fellow but do you even have an operational definition of the word 'moral'? And then once you have that you decide to focus on carnivores and omnivores as entire groups as being 'immoral'? That must feel very good and certainly is convenient! You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing - all the while feeling comfortable in your moral superiority! Hooray for you! While you're sitting there feeling so good, maybe take the time and get a biology degree, which is literally the study of life itself, and see how the chain of life works. Cheers and best wishes."

Question to vegan: Moral difference between killing an animal and eating a plant?

A person wrote:
" Since plants have life too, as you noted earlier, then it doesn't seem to me we should stop at killing and eating meat, we should also stop killing and eating plants, right?"

I don't believe you think cutting the grass is comparable to stabbing a dog. We recognize that stabbing a dog is immoral because that it causes unnecessary suffering and death upon a sentient being, which is also why we should be morally opposed to the industralized animal abuse in the meat-, milk and egg industry, hunting, and any other unnecessary killing.

I recommend this post about plants: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

It shows that plants are not sentient and they don't feel pain and suffering.
If you still think that plants are consciousness, just like we are and all the other animals are, then avoid killing them. You don't need to. See the paragraph further down.

If you kill and eat cows - then you kill an innocent and sentient cow; and in total you consume more than 10 times more plants are consumed (the food of the cow) compared to the amount of plants you would have had to consume if you ate a vegan diet. This is also why we will eliminate starvation and poverty if everyone eats a vegan diet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas

"Poor countries sell their grain to the West while their own children starve in their arms. And we feed it to livestock. So we can eat a steak? Am I the only one who sees this as a crime? Every morsel of meat we eat is slapping the tear-stained face of a starving child. When I look into her eyes, should I be silent?
The earth can produce enough for everyone’s need. But not enough for everyone’s greed."

You can just eat the seeds of the plants and not kill the plants, if you believe that plants are sentient: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/05/the-connection-of-eating-meat-and.html

I showed in my last comment why it is unethical to consume any kind of animal Products.
---------

It is well-known scientifically that animals are conscious and feel pain, and that plants are not conscious and don’t feel pain.
See e.g. this about plants: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz
“Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn’t include, in my understanding, the ability to think.  Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks.”

------------
Another post:
It has been mentioned previously in this thread. I think that everyone understand the moral difference between uprooting a plant and killing an animal. If we saw someone abusing an animal we would step in and protect the animal, if someone is stepping on, or cutting grass, or cutting down a tree, we don’t believe this is harming any sentient being.
Learn more in this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/#.UciBjJxW6nk
The people who still believe that plants are sentient, can eat of the seeds and the fruits without uprooting any plant.

When it comes to consuming animals, however, it is clear that this isn’t ethical. I will show why.
“Most people would agree with the proposition that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can’t justify suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience.

If we had a rule that said, ‘It’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children, but it’s OK to beat them if you enjoy watching them suffer’, that would create an exception that would not only be perverse but would make the rule silly.
Similarly if we say it’s wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals, well what’s our justification for eating meat? We don’t need to eat animals to be optimally healthy. I have been a vegan for going on now 31 years and I would daresay that I have more energy and suffer from fewer colds and viruses than most of the people I teach who are young enough to be my grandchildren. So the idea that you need animal products to be optimally healthy is simply false.

The best justification that we have for inflicting suffering and death on 56 billion animals a year is that they taste good. We are saying it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, but on the other hand we participate in this all the time. “
Quote: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360

Vegan answer to 'Humans are omnivorous by evolution'/'eating meat is natural'

'Nilan,
“Human are omnivorous by evolution, morality doesn't even come into play here. As a species, criticizing us for consuming meat is as futile as calling bears or crows "immoral" for eating meat.”

No, humans have a choice and can thrive on a vegan diet. We’re eating animal products despite the lack of “necessity”. We are killing and hurting animals despite that we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.
Regardless of whether we have evolved to be able to eat animal products, doesn’t tell whether it is moral or not.
We have evolved to have the capacity to inflict unnecessary violence upon other beings e.g. humans, this doesn’t morally justify unnecessary violence.

Also the statement that we are “omnivores” is flawed. We eat animal products despite having the body of an herbivore.
Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.

Quite the opposite is true.
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.
Quote:
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo
Some more links here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html

Body odor:

The Effect of Meat Consumption on Body Odor Attractiveness

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract

True human diet. Humans evolved on a starch-based diet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4
"Dartmouth Associate Professor of Anthropology, Nathaniel Dominy PhD, talks about his research and why he believes the true human diet is one based in Starch. "

Bigger brain/more intelligence doesn't justify killing and eating animals

A person wrote:
" the awkward/annoying moment when vegans/vegetarians use social media to rant about meat eaters and how horrible they are for eating fellow earthlings, when it was thanks to our ancestor's meat-rich diets that our brains grew bigger and thus more intelligent, so that humans were able to go on to develop the technology vegans/vegetarians use today to rant about meat-eaters..."
My reply:
It is severely flawed that ”more intelligence” would make it morally justified to inflict unnecessary suffering and pain on another sentient being.
Apart from that, our ancestors ate a primarily starch-diet: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/feb/starch.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6983330.stm



“Most people would agree with the proposition that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can’t justify suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience. 

If we had a rule that said, ‘It’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children, but it’s OK to beat them if you enjoy watching them suffer’, that would create an exception that would not only be perverse but would make the rule silly. 

Similarly if we say it’s wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals, well what’s our justification for eating meat?  We don’t need to eat animals to be optimally healthy. I have been a vegan for going on now 31 years and I would daresay that I have more energy and suffer from fewer colds and viruses than most of the people I teach who are young enough to be my grandchildren. So the idea that you need animal products to be optimally healthy is simply false.

The best justification that we have for inflicting suffering and death on 56 billion animals a year is that they taste good. We are saying it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, but on the other hand we participate in this all the time. 

We’re not on a desert island, or in any situation of conflict with non-human animals. We simply choose to eat them because we like the taste or the convenience of going out to the fast food place next door. It’s simply a matter of pleasure or convenience.

“ Quote: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360

Vegan reply to "'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed"

“The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking”
Ethics is the only reason why we are not being cannibals as well. If you are going to use your justification you have to disregard that there is an objective moral and you have to disregard what we intuitively know, that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon human animals as well as non-human animals.

To state it again:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
“ Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.UaB68Jxc18E

Reply to Michael, who wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed. Spiders eat flies, birds eat worms, cats eat birds and fish, wild cats eats other big animals etc etc etc and is a way of life.
The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking