Meat eaters often conflate nature and animal agriculture to ease their cognitive dissonance. The reality is you have a choice whether or not to deliberately inflict suffering and death on sentient animals. And you choose to do so. Other animals lack that choice, lack moral agency, and act on instinct. Accept that.

Yeah, you don't get it. Like humans, how they may have evolved millions of years ago does not necessitate their needlessly killing animals now. However, gorillas don't eat meat and have much more impressive canines than you. What's next? Forward-facing eyes? 😂😂😂😂

Other animals have no choice, lack moral agency, and act on instinct. Other animals routinely commit infanticide, while some eat their young. The logic of basing your behaviour on what other animals do is clearly flawed, or we should have no compunction in killing or eating babies with our genitalia out. Here's a great drama short that imagines humans copying the natural animal behaviour that is rape: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqDbnWOBbrqlhpI

@ it was the protein that let grown our brains, it was the fire who made it easier for us to digest the protein. You could see on our teeth and our position of eyes, that we are canevoren. I agree that it is our responsibility to give the animals a good life before but we are meateater.

Classic cognitive dissonance. Once you've had one argument exposed as fallacious, instead of admitting (to yourself) that you choose to inflict suffering and early death on sentient animals, you spurt out another inane argument to try to justify that choice. The fact that Neanderthals cooked more meat than our ancestors shows human evolution is much more complex than the meat-made-us-human myth meat eaters like to believe in, while gorillas have forward-facing eyes and much more impressive canines than us but don't eat meat. Regardless, I doubt very much you're living in a cave. How we evolved is irrelevant as there is now no need for most people to consume meat. It's a choice of whether to inflict suffering and early death on sentient creatures (and contribute to deforestation and climate change) or not. I choose not. But please also read www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-humanity-have-to-eat-meat/ and edition.cnn.com/2024/04/30/africa/morocco-ancient-humans-paleo-diet-scn/index.html I'm not going to waste my time on any more of your attempts to ease your cognitive dissonance. It's ironic that you don't recognise your belief in your superiority, your willingness to exploit other animals, and your inability for self reflection as narcissistic traits.

It gets way better too.

Neanderthals ate more meat than us. Where are they again?

Tyson often spurts out such bizarre hypothetical whataboutisms in an embarrassing attempt to ease his cognitive dissonance, while his mesmerising lack of knowledge (and research) is exposed when he claims milk production is slaughter free. The reality is that plants simply don't have the biological architecture (lacking brains, pain receptors etc) to be sentient, let alone sapient, and vegans distinguish between animals and plants because plants are not sentient. If you can't see the difference between a cow and cowslip please read this paper - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8052213/ - which debunks the research that has led to some meat eaters claiming plant sentience in a desperate attempt at deflection (while ignoring that more plants go to feeding livestock than humans). It is worth noting that trees bear fruit specifically to be eaten (no livestock wants us to eat them), while the argument that eating one life form is no worse than eating any other life form is to also argue people should be eating golden retrievers: calling vegans hypocrites for distinguishing between the plant and animal kingdoms while distinguishing between different orders of mammal is beyond absurd. Indeed, this whole argument is so embarrassingly inane I'm surprised I have to address it. Every time I hear Tyson speak, I cringe with the stupidity of his arguments (I heard him suggesting classifying sportspeople by hormones rather than biological sex, apparently unaware that hormones - especially testosterone - are determined by biological sex). Earthling Ed goes into more detail about what a twat he is.

Humans have to eat things that live, but plants are not sentient like animals. They do not have brains, pain receptors or feelings. If you can't see the difference between a cow and cowslip please read this paper - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8052213/ - which debunks the research that has led to some meat eaters claiming plant sentience in a desperate attempt at deflection (while ignoring that more plants go to feeding livestock than humans). It is worth noting that trees bear fruit specifically to be eaten (no livestock wants us to eat them), while the argument that eating one life form is no worse than eating any other life form is to also argue people should be eating golden retrievers: calling vegans hypocrites for distinguishing between the plant and animal kingdoms while distinguishing between different orders of mammal is beyond absurd. Indeed, this whole argument is so embarrassingly inane I'm surprised I have to address it.

This is too stupid not to be a joke.