Philosophical Vegan Forum

If you read that one topic by teh best forum member RedAppleGP, youll see that me and EquALLity got into a conversation that we felt should be moved so we dont stray away. regardless, lets get to todays topic.

Don't know what a frugivore is? Basically, it means that the healthiest things you can eat are fruits and vegetables, which we are! (not to be confused with herbivore). Sure, one may then argue "But we haev canines!". Okay okay ill give you that. oh yeaa fun fact: One of the worlds largest canines belong to a herbivore! (Hippo) (wait does that previous sentence bear any coherence?) I'm just saying, we are not omnivores. We are frugivores. Even the latest studies have proven this. If im rong, please tell me.

*Sorry for short post, if you got a schedule like mine you ain't go time to write a good topic.
**Sorry for lack of coherence. My fingers are so tired they are about to fall off.

If frugivore= an animal that fruits and vegetables are the healthiest things for, then you can be an omnivorous frugivore, no?

They don't seem to be mutually exclusive, if an omnivore is an animal that is capable of sustaining itself off of both animal and plant derived things.

How are you defining omnivore?

@EquALLity I think I shouldve phrased that better. Frugivores can eat fruit and vegetables and be healthier than an omnivore. An omnivore eats both plants and meat.

What do you mean by that? Like they're capable of eating both plants and meat, or they actually eat them?

Well, you can eat only meat and be healthier than a vegan, if the vegan eats only leaves or something.

P.S. I'm struggling to think of a word for your other topic.
Let's see....
Huckleberry...?
No, that's too long.
*contemplates going to Google*
*decides to try harder*
Hackintosh?
No, that's not a word.
Helmet?
Goddammit!

A human can survive on a diet rich in meat until reproduction age, therefore it is safe to say we are omnivores. It might not be healthy, but we can use it to survive.

As far as I know, we humans are omnivores in the sense that we have the ability to eat meat (though not digest it very well). However, we are herbivores (more specifically frugivores) in the sense that a diet of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and legumes is one that our bodies are most well suited to digesting. Long story short, we have the ability to consume meat but we have no need for it and thrive better on a diet without. I try to be very clear about this when meat-eaters tell me "I'm an omnivore!" I point out to them that due to their lack of necessity to consume animals and their bodily secretions, that they're essentially employing a "might makes right" philosophy to justify the harm they inflict upon animals. Interesting how most people would not use a "might makes right" philosophy to justify needless harm towards humans or companion animals...

The problem is that many think that an animal is either herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore and that humans must be labeled as one of these. Many thus feel that humans should be labeled as omnivore since we are capable of surviving on both meat and vegetables. However, if one realizes that different species fall along many different places along the diet spectrum one notes that humans are more herbivorous than most species that are considered omnivores.