Mr. Cleetus wrote:xrodolfox wrote:I will stay out of this question. Having been vegan for a while makes these elementary and repetitive questions mundane. I prefer no to expend energy on the hypothetical when in the end it's still an "appeal to nature" fallacy we are talking around.
An appeal to nature would be the statement, "we are naturally omnivores, therefore we need to currently be omnivores and should not be vegan." That's not the statement or question that was asked. I think (hope) most here are well aware that we can choose to be vegans now even if we are or are not naturally omnivores.
Anyway, I have a question that is more interesting to me: is the statement above that I presented an appeal to nature? I think it is not. Isn't an appeal to nature the statement that something is good just because it is natural? If bodies were optimised for an omnivorous diet then it is difficult to argue against an omnivorous diet having the potential to be "good": even if it is not the only "good" diet. This does not inherently lead to anything against a vegan diet, so the statement is still wrong - but for different reasons, not an appeal to nature. ...also maybe I have missed Rodolfo's point entirely! (I ask because I have been in this exact argument before )
You and I have the same exact point. It was me that was unclear. You said it much more clearly. The reason I stated "appeal to nature" is because there's two ways to reduce the answer to this question: either humans are "meant" to be omnivores (optimized only to eat animals and anything else is severely deficient), which is an appeal to nature; or being omnivorous means that there's a variety of healthy diets out there, some meat eating diets amongst them, and some vegan diets amongst the healthy/optimal diets as well. I tend to discard the second in message because it isn't used by trolls much. That's the point of view I subscribe to, and others can argue for that. I itch irritatingly just thinking about folks putting for the first argument that reduces to an appeal to nature because that's incredibly common for trolls and a prevailing argument amongst folks I talk to in person that think veganism is terrible.
I think we were saying something quite similar; I just made the assumption that if this discussion wasn't going to be reasonable, it'd end up in the appeal to nature arguments rather than the mundane and obvious "many diets can be optimal, and many diets can be less than optimal, including vegan and non-vegan diets".
Catt Queen wrote:Doesn't it seem strange that a person should choose a username such as "cobalamin" and appear on a vegan forum trying to start a discussion on whether or not human are naturally omnivores... ? Probably just me thinking too much...
Thanks for pointing that out.
Cobalmin is another name for vitamin B-12... which is often one of those vitamins that anti-vegans bring up to "trump" that vegans will die soon, or that a vegan diet is less than optimal, or even deadly. I am trying to stay away from making assumptions without direct evidence.
This Cobalmin person might just be a fellow vegan who loves B-12. There's several of those around. I don't know.
No intro thread yet.
My promise to stay out has been thwarted by my ego once again.