Animals

Actually, it's not subjective at all. Biologically, eggs, dairy, and even basic meats (not including things like veal), are part of the natural life cycle of those animals. Extremely fatty fowl livers are not.

It's not a matter of playing favorites with species or food. Factory farms are cruel no matter what they're producing, and I say as much in my other posts, too. However, meat, egg, and dairy products can be obtained from farms where animals are treated humanely -- that don't produce veal, where the hens aren't confined, etc. -- foie gras cannot. These farms do exist; not as the source of the majority of the food on the market, but as a viable and growing part of local economies across the country.

While many humans thrive as vegans, as a species, we are still biologically omnivores. I don't think humans are ranked above the animal kingdom, but I do believe we're part of it, and that includes eating other animals.

Well let's interrogate your use of the term "natural" a little. Surely you are descriptively correct in one sense: cows naturally produce milk when impregnated, for example. But for what end: to feed their offspring. The slide then that you are assuming, which I characterize as "subjective" in your reasoning, is that you assume "natural" to mean we consume the dairy that is "naturally" produced. Likewise with hens who lay eggs: that is a natural process of reproduction. However, it doesn't follow, logically, that, therefore, that taking and consuming of the eggs is "natural".

So we can move onto your "humane" argument. Clearly, there's nothing "natural" about drinking the milk produced to feed the offspring of another animal, so what we're talking about is justifying the exploitation for this milk. This moves into your "natural hierarchy" argument. Given that you write an "animal welfare" blog you should at least be familiar with the animal rights discourse.

Clearly, you cannot make the moral argument that because we are apart of "nature" we can therefore justify doing what other animals do; or even what we do, "naturally". For this would also, necessarily, justify violence, rape, bigotry, etc. These all "naturally" appear in our evolutionary history and the animal kingdom. Furthermore, we are moral agents, which effectively removes us from "nature": we don't believe might makes right, for example; we are governed by "rights" and "wrongs".   

All species have deviant behavior, like rape, and just because it occurs in nature, doesn't mean it's "natural." Eating meat, on the other hand, is natural for humans. Even when people make the choice to be vegan, you're still naturally designed to be an omnivore. So far, that hasn't changed with evolution.
 
Hens lay eggs whether or not there is a rooster present, so using unfertilized eggs to nourish another species instead of letting them go to waste is about as natural a process as there can be, as long as the chickens are kept in humane conditions. If you're assuming the chickens mourn for their unfertilized eggs, then you're imposing human moral values on them. Even if the eggs were fertilized, taking and consuming eggs is, in fact, as common a way as any other for carnivores and omnivores to get protein.

As long as a cow and her calf are taken care of and aren't suffering, then they're being treated humanely. To think they care whether humans drink some of the milk at that point is anthropomorphising. If we're separated from other species as moral agents, then they don't have the capacity for the morality that you're describing.

Stephanie,

You are making a poorly reasoned argument. Surely, there is nothing more "natural" for our species than aggression and violence; especially when directed at out-groups. This manifests as racism, war, etc. Your argument begs two questions then: How do you know what's "natural" and why isn't this act, aggression, acceptable by your own reasoning?

So you are imposing a contract on hens: I will take your unfertilized eggs and use them for our purposes. Could we reason simiarly with humans: women who don't use their eggs should be exploited for the use of women who want children?

The rest of your argument is tangential, so I'l take your non-response to my criticism that you can't appeal to "it's natural therefore okay" as a concession because we are moral agents. Other species don't need to "have the capacity for morality" for it to still be wrong for me to rape you because I'm evolutionarily inclined to do so. Stay on point Stephanie.   

Furthermore, the mentally handicapped probably don't "care" that I'm impregnating them, and consuming the milk; they don't have the requisite mental faculties. However, I'm certain that you'd still argue that it's wrong. It's not anthropomorphizing; that's intellectually lazy Stephanie. It's still wrong in principle, in both the case of the cow and the mentally handicapped human for the same reason: exploitation can't be justified.

Secondly, the mentally handicapped person isn't a moral agent, and therefore doesn't have the capacity for morality, as you so poetically put it, but if I were to raise them for food, it would still be wrong. The same is true of cows, unless we beg the question.

Again, I would think that someone interested in welfare would at least know the debate about welfare/rights. You should read-up before proceeding because your arguments are the same big-worded, no substance, usually used by people who don't know these issues at all.    

You just compared harvesting eggs from a human woman (a lengthy and invasive procedure) to taking useless eggs that a chicken lays, doesn't want, and won't miss. That alone exposes your intellectual dishonesty in this debate, nevermind your arrogant attitude.

Animals don't care about lofty things like exploitation and liberation. They care about being healthy and well-fed.

Kristen,

Two simple points show us that you're wrong.

One, Stephanie's argument was that *because* the eggs aren't being used, it is "as natural a process as there can be" to allow another animal to be nourished, i.e., use the wasted eggs to satisfy some need. Therefore, logically, the same should apply to using the unfertilized eggs of human women: "it is as natural a process as there can be" to use these wasted eggs for some good end, i.e., allowing another human animal to satisfy a rather important need (for some).

And two, as I wrote above, your reasoning necessarily means that I can exploit the mentally handicapped, or human babies, or those who have suffered severe brain injuries because they "don't care about lofty things like exploitation and liberation. They care about being healthy and well-fed." This is objectively true: many, many humans are cognitively inferior to the nonhuman animals we exploit. On principle, since I'm assuming you don't believe it's acceptable to kill human babies or the retarded for food or painful biomedical experiments, unless you can cite a rational reason otherwise, the same must be true for cows, and pigs, etc. You have just made my case Kristen.  

I think Alex's remarks point to the ridiculous and unacceptable notion that how a being is used (and abused) has nothing to do with their intellectual abilities, but really has more to do with what kind of person we should be, i.e. someone who would never take advantage of any(one) for personal gain.

Amy,

It is simple logic, and yes, the reasoning that Stephanie (and most others) have been using here to justify harming and killing nonhuman animals is indeed horrifying. Your frustration with the analogy exposes your own prejudice: someone cites X reason as a justification for harming animals but not human animals; it doesn't apply to all human animals, therefore, either those human animals who it doesn't apply to are excluded or they are included because they're humans which is no better than saying you, Amy, are excluded because you are a woman (i.e., you don't belong to my biological group).

What I would say is horrifying is that billions of animals are brutalized and killed annually because we enjoy how they taste, how their skins look on us, and simply because we've lost use for them and as this thread should have shown you Amy, it cannot be justified, morally. That, should horrify you. Not that somebody like me points it out. I noticed you don't have a defense; just a complaint about me; that's typical. It is a Holocaust every month, and we can't rationally justify it! 

The anti-animal rights movement is discredited every day because of this. Your comment here just puts you in that camp: I don't know why I believe this, but when someone points out the obvious flaws, they discredit themselves, because how else can I go on living in self-delusion.    

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're part of an "anti-animal rights movement." No only is that if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us mentality paranoid, but it's also counterproductive.

As an animal welfare activist, I don't care why someone wants to help - the important thing is that people are trying to make things better. It doesn't even matter to me if we agree on everything; we can still work together on the areas where we do agree. That's how effective advocacy suceeds, by bringing together allies to make change happen, issue by issue. Every movement works this way - for instance, there are environmental groups that stand together on toxics issues and fight each other on climate change.

My advocacy for animals isn't centered around the philosophical battle of why we should care; I'm here to fight for them in the real-world by rescuing animals, helping people care for and keep their animals, working with shelters and rescue groups to save animals and improve conditions, contributing money and advocacy to organizations I believe in, and giving people the tools and resources that will help them take steps to join in and make a difference, too.

While the moral debates are interesting, shutting people out who are new to the issues because they can't justify why they want to do more (or can't justify it to your satisfaction) isn't going to save any animals.

Stephanie,

It is not "paranoia", it is a clear conclusion. While I agree that "animal rights" isn't a concrete concept (most often confused by people who want eat animals and so they create straw-man's to justify it), it is like "human rights": you know it when you see it being violated.

With "human rights" there are intense cultural distinctions in the definition, but even for someone who's sympathetic to standpoint epistemologies and anti-colonial discourses, there are self-evident "wrongs". These would include violations of bodily autonomy for all but the most inescapable reasons, such as self-defense.

Likewise with "animal rights" Stephanie. You are anti-animal rights if you don't accept the conclusion that for all sentient beings, bodily autonomy to the extent that they aren't being harmed (unless for a significant reason, just like before) is sacrosanct.

So, when I argue that those who don't accept this basic conclusion have discredited themselves, my point turns on this: You can't justify it Stephanie. On other threads, I've asked for a justification and I've received nothing but arguments that in "Animal Rights/Human Rights 101" you learn are totally baseless.

The inescapable conclusion for the "animal rights" advocate is this: go vegan and stop violating that one basic, and utterly profound, right. (I put "animal rights" in quotation because it is a complicated concept; but for it to have any meaning at all, like human rights, certain fundamental premises must be accepted.)

Now, I appreciate your advocacy for welfare reform. Indeed, decreasing suffering is immensely important. But even on this point, veganism is the inescapable conclusion because all, every bit of it, suffering that occurs to turn animals into our food is "unnecessary", by definition, in the Western world. It isn't necessary for health, and non-animal sources abound.          

It's incorrect to assume that everyone in the Western world can make the personal choice to be vegan. Perhaps the majority of the population could theoretically make the transition, but while non-animal sources abound, so do variances in human physiology. A vegetarian lifestyle is often recommended for a number of health problems, but there are conditions out there that can't thrive on a vegan or vegetarian diet, such as certain amino acid deficiencies, the inability of the body to produce enough cholesterol, soy intolerance, multiple allergies, etc. If we move out of the Western world, more factors arise that make a universally vegan diet unfeasible.

Stephanie,

I am not assuming it Stephanie, it is a well-sourced argument. "Variance in human physiology"? That's confusing given that the American Dietetic Association (ADA) argues that veganism is healthy at all stages of the life cycle.

What you're doing is essentalizing your mistaken conception of a vegan diet. The ADA, and most mainstream dietitians argue that our health needs can be satisfied without animal sources. Some animal sources may provide the simplest or most accessible forms (although the negatives of say eggs probably outweigh the benefits). The combinations may vary, but it is simply intellectual dishonest to argue that veganism is not perfectly satisfactory.    

What's dishonest is denying genetic conditions, allergies and illnesses (which are the variations I specifically referred to) that affect the way certain individuals process nutrients. In those cases, veganism is far from "perfectly satisfactory." The ADA recognizes the fact that no recommendation will apply to every single human, as you suggest, which why they make sure their guidelines and information (both the ones that tout vegetarianism/veganism and the ones promoting the benefits of animal products) are frequently accompanied by a reminder to talk to your doctor or registered dietician.

Stephanie,

So your reasoning would hold for non-vegan diets as well; therefore, you're not really saying anything at all because omnivorous diets are "far from 'perfectly satisfying'" for X, Y, and Z cases. My point stands: according to the ADA, veganism provides the necessary nutritional content for members of our species, i.e., there isn't anything in animal based food sources that cannot be attained in non-animal based food sources.

Therefore, in Industrialized nations, given the abundance of these non-animal based food sources, causing harm and killing animals for food is definitionally a choice; a choice that needs to be justified based on the principles we generally hold regarding the badness of suffering and unnecessarily causing death.

Notice, the moral content still stands Stephanie, because you, nor Amy, nor anybody else has disputed it. You moved in-and-out from "we can because it's natural", to "it's okay (for some reason) so long as it's 'humane'", to "we (or as you've qualified it, a few of us) need to because of dietary need."

Doesn't it ever strike you that all this slipping and sliding between arguments is rather telling? If you have to go through all of this to justify a choice you and others make, isn't it simply more reasonable to not make the choice? Especially because, remember, we are talking about causing harm and death. 

When you cannot get all your basic nutritional requirements without a supplement manufactured in a laboratory, then your diet is not nutritionally complete.  The only natural source of Vitamin B12 is meat, dairy, and eggs (unless your vegetables are contaminated with human feces). B12 deficiency causes tiredness, a decreased mental work capacity, weakened concentration and memory, and irritability and depression. If allowed to progress, it causes anemia and nervous system degeneration, resulting in numbness, tingling, impaired sense of smell, loss of appetite, disturbed coordination, and eventually ataxia, or a general loss of muscle coordination and balance. All of this is irreversible.

source

source

source

source

source

Lest you accuse me of bias, all of these sources are from vegan/veggie website, with the exception of the Wiki article on the detailed effects of B12 deficiency.

Also, almost all B12 in supplements is derived from genetically modified bacteria, for those of you who care about GMO's.

source

Considering that most people are very comfortable with taking some form of mult-vitamin already and most multi's even contain a B12 component, doesn't seem like this is truly the issue that some meat eaters might think it should be.  Besides, considering the overall effect of meat eating on a physiology that is not meant to eat it, the need for label reading at the vitamin shelf seems a small price to pay for doing the best for my body that I can.

Kristen,

B12 is indeed accessible in non-animal based food sources. Nutritional yeast, some marine plants such as seaweed, are examples.  

If you had bothered to read my sources, you'd see that is untrue. What you call "nutritional yeast" is yeast that has been fortified in a lab with b12, and although some vegans keep circulating the theory that things like seaweed can provide b12, this has been thoroughly debunked. Even most vegans, except those that are so thoroughly invested in believing their ideas that they won't let facts get in the way, accept this reality. Which is why I was able to cite for you a plethora of vegan sources explaining that you DO need b12 and you CAN'T get it from plants. I could find another dozen if you like.

@ Debby - yes, you can certainly do just fine by taking a daily multivitamin high in b12. I personally don't buy processed foods, and I tried several times in my life to stick with taking a multivitamin because it seemed the healthy thing to do but I never managed to stick with it more than maybe 2 days, haha... So I rely on a varied and balanced diet of real food (as opposed to the pseudo-food that fills grocery stores) to ensure my nutritional needs. Within the next year I'd like to be growing/raising at least 50% of my own food. I like to know precisely what it is I'm eating. I rather like Michael Pollan's simple advice of "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants," although I am compelled to ignore the second one due to my ridiculously high metabolism - ever since I cut fast food out of my diet, I'm constantly struggling to pull my weight up out of "underweight" range. :/ I do best with a lot of calorically dense foods. Another reason why I am not a vegan.

Here are a couple sources that point out how much better the human body functions without meat.

http://www.jivdaya.org/vegetarian_athletes.htm

this is a study, done by non-veg'ns, and shows that athletes do better when they are not meat-eaters

http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/protein.htm

this article discusses the digestive system of human beings, and how we are designed for a plant based diet.

Again, reading a label at the vitamin shelf is a small price to pay for overall good health which is more achievable with a veg diet than with a meat diet.

There are certainly health benefits to reducing meat in your diet, that is true. Most Americans eat WAY too much meat, and what's worse, almost half of that just ends up in a trash can, but I digress. Studies have shown that so-called "flexitarians" that only eat meat sometimes ("mostly plants") show the exact same health benefits.

Humans evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores OR carnivores. We have adaptations for eating both plants and animals, allowing us to survive in a wide variety of ecosystems with a wide variety of diets. There are cultures that consume almost entirely plants (several parts of India) and cultures that consume almost entirely meat (Intuit, Maasai), but the key word is almost. Even the article you provided stops short of saying humans evolved to be herbivores. It instead argues that humans are not carnivores, which is obvious; no one thinks humans should ONLY eat meat. And while we can survive on a wide variety of diets we seem to do best when we eat real food, not too much, mostly plants (which includes lacto-ovo vegetarianism).

And a particular pet peeve of mine: when people make broad comparisons between "carnivores" and "herbivores," as if there wasn't more variety within these groups than between them. Your article delves into this kind of ignorant thinking only for a few brief sentences, but it irks me... For example, he says, "Like herbivores, we sweat to cool our bodies rather than pant like carnivores," which is just silly. Do sharks pant? Do crocodiles? Do pigs (fellow omnivores) sweat? Do iguanas? Kangaroos? The answer to all of these is no (perspiration is not common in general in the animal kingdom, regardless of diet). But again, it is not the main thrust of his argument so this is just a tangent.

Kristen,

B12 is a bacteria that grows in the soil and on plant matter. It is made "viable", or absorbable, in the digestive track of animals. Therefore, the animals whose body parts you eat have consumed the B12 directly from uncleaned plant sources.

Normal cleaning of food eliminates most of the available B12 in the food we consume, but it does indeed grow on plant matter that human animals consume. You are factually inaccurate on this point Kristen. Your argument would have us assume that historical vegans couldn't survive without fortification. But we know that's not true. 

The requirement for vitamin B12 is infinitesimal - only 2 micrograms a day. (In fact, one teaspoon of vitamin B12 would meet the needs of nearly one hundred people for the rest of their lives.) In addition, our bodies hoard B12 by storing any excess and by recycling what is used. But it is water soluble, so a consistent source is necessary. The fact that it is saved, combined with the minimal amount required, suggests that we evolved to live healthfully in a B12-poor environment.

The potential problem, therefore, lies in sanitized sources of food, which is easily circumvented by fortification. But it is, indeed, on plant matter such as seaweed, nutritional yeast, etc.   

You seem to have ignored my last post entirey, first off, so let me repeat it:

If you had bothered to read my sources, you'd see that is untrue. What you call "nutritional yeast" is yeast that has been fortified in a lab with b12, and although some vegans keep circulating the theory that things like seaweed can provide b12, this has been thoroughly debunked. Even most vegans, except those that are so thoroughly invested in believing their ideas that they won't let facts get in the way, accept this reality. Which is why I was able to cite for you a plethora of vegan sources explaining that you DO need b12 and you CAN'T get it from plants. I could find another dozen if you like.

Second, there is an anecdotal case of some vegan Iranians who got their b12 from unwashed vegetables fertilized with human waste, but those wo tried to follow up on the story were unable to verify it. There is no evidence whatsoever that you can get b12 from soil.

Very small amounts of b12 have been found on plants specifically grown in soils treated with manure, but the number is so infintesimally small, even if it turns out to be the active kind we can utilize, that you would have to eat pounds and pounds of it every day to meet your nutritional minimum. As small as our nutritional requirement for b12 is, the trace amounts on contaminated vegetables are FAR smaller (by the way, are you really advocating that we eat trace amounts of feces to supplement our diets? And isn't that technically an animal product?). And in order to eat enough seaweed to make use of the trace amounts that some species countain, you would be consuming a dangerous amount of iodine.  Not to mention, seaweed has been shown to be high in the inactive form of b12 which is proven to actually inhibit the absorption of b12 by the body.

The requirement for b12 is small, yes, owing largely to our abilty to reabsorb it, but it is still there, and as I have described previously, it is quite crucial.

You can sit there and say I'm factually innacurate all you like, but this subject has been studied in great detail precisely because people like you keep insisting you can get your b12 requirements satisfied by plants. You haven't given me a single source to counter all of mine. We're all supposed to just take your word for it, doctor?

Just for fun, here are even MORE sources specifically debunking the idea that you can get b12 requirements met with seaweed (or any other plants):

source

source

source

source

You are promoting dangerous falsehoods that can result in serious health problems.

Kristen,

It's not anecdotal. How could entire Greek and Eastern philosophical groups who eschewed all animal-based food sources survive unless they had access to the necessary nutrients, including B12, in non-animal based sources?   

Do you know what anecdotal means? It means there's no hard evidence. Even if you could prove to me that some specific people believed in eliminating all animal products from the diet, you can't go back and study whether or not they actually follwed that diet strictly, or had b12 deficienies, or what sources they may have gotten b12 from. And given that in modern-times we are unable to find any natural source of b12 besides animal products (and I'm including feces here), I doubt very highly they had one back then either.

Kristen,

It isn't anecdotal because the evidence you cite is contradicted, even within the "sources" you cite themselves:

"Vitamin B-12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. The total synthesis of B-12 was reported by Robert Burns Woodward and Albert Eschenmoser, and remains one of the classic feats of organic synthesis.

Animals and plants do not synthesize vitamin B12, it is the microorganisms that exist in healthy soil and also inside the digestive systems of healthy animals, including humans.

The reason that we, as vegans, don't get enough B12 in our diets is because of the reckless use of herbicides and pesticides and other "scientific agricultural advances" which have killed all the soil we have to grow our food in."

Furthermore, your argument seems to be "true" as a fallacy of assertion: historical vegan groups *must* have been dishonest in their claims or else your assertion would be untrue; ergo, just trust you because you say it aggressively.  

Every forum from Animal Rights to Gay Rights to War and Peace provides information on the issues and updates on what's going on with those issues around the world, how the key constituents are affected, and what people can do about it. Sometimes that information comes in broad position pieces and sometimes it comes in specific examples such as a feature on one animal or city, or an action or consumer tip, like a recipe, that's in line with that cause's beliefs.

If you're not sure how this information about how animals are treated in the making of foie gras and how the issue has been dealt with legislatively pertains to Animal Welfare, there is a primer for this cause on the main page.

This article is just one illustration of the inhumane treatment of animals; one of the many examples where animal welfare and animal rights are on the same side. I don't claim that it is the only example of cruelty that animals face. You may not agree with my perspective on issues that aren't even mentioned in this article, but that doesn't make the issue of foie gras any less of an animal welfare problem.

Stephanie,

Here are two simple questions: How do you define "humane"? And, why couldn't I extend that definition of "human treatment" to human animals?  

"It seems to me that that statement allows for the possibility that fois gras can be produced humanely..."

If you look above, I expressly said that foie gras cannot be produced in a humane way for the exact same reasons you stated. Animal welfare isn't about simply improving conditions no matter what the issue. That would lead the conclusion that things like dog fighting aren't animal welfare issues because there's no pain-free alternative except to eliminate it. And, believe me, we're all in favor of eliminating bloodsports, and animal welfare groups are at the forefront of the fight to do so.

Animal welfare seeks to relieve suffering of animals just like animal rights does. The difference is that animal welfare defines suffering based on the needs of, and relationships between, individual species instead of applying a concept of moral freedom across the board.

I am all for banning foie gras entirely. I am all for banning inhumane factory farm practices for any species. I'm all for "peaceful and pain free" lives. I'd like nothing more than to see farm animals raised without excessive drugs and unnatural fattening processes, and with plenty of room to move around, fresh air, and clean places to sleep. The place where animal welfare and animal rights diverge is whether it's ever okay to eat an animal that's been given a cruelty-free life.

And as a writer for an "animal welfare" blog, I am assuming that in your opinion, it is okay to eat that animal that has lived a pain free, cruelty free life.  Essentially, you don't mind the experience of violence for them at the end of it.  

It seems a fair statement of animal-welfarists, that they are compassionate people sometimes.

First of all, I buy meat raised humanely on pasture without the use of chemicals, raised by farmers who improve the environment and they land they farm (same with my veggies), so all of these supposed detriments of meat are really not an issue for me.  Did you know that all the health problems associated with red meat disappear when that meat is grass-fed, like it's supposed to be? Second, I don't consume very much meat, perhaps once or twice a week, mainly owing to the fact that meat is expensive but also because we don't need that much of it in our diets. I think I've said "mostly plants" several times now and I wish you would read my responses more carefully. As far as weight gain, I was referring primarily to dairy, which is where I get the vast majority of my calories. And as for multivitamins, I said I tried them when I was young, because they seemed like the healthy thing to do; where I am now, I would never take a multivitamin because I believe that if you are not eating a balanced diet, a multivitamin is not going to make up for it. A great deal of nutrients, we are beginning to find, can't even be used by our bodies in that form because those nutrients must be found in the context of other nutrients found in the whole food in order to be effective. Vitamin D, for example, is fat-soluble, so when you take it without fat (as in fat-free milk fortified with Vitamin D) most of it goes straight through your body, unabsorbed. Useless. We evolved to have our nutritional needs met by food, not individual chemicals and compounds, and that's why I don't eat supplements or processed food.

I just explained to you how misguided comparative anatomy between "carnivores" and "herbivores" is... I said nothing of pointy teeth. Our dentition is generalized, like pigs, so that we can eat many different things. We have classic omnivore dentition. Aardvarks don't have pointy teeth, and yet they are carnivores all the same. Saying our hands are suited for gathering is silly - our hands are suited for a great many things, including fashioning weapons. Not all carnivores have "up-and-down" jaws and not all herbivores have "side-to-side" jaws. I could list for you 100 carnivores without claws and 100 herbivores with claws. I could probably list thousands if I needed to. You know who shares far more of our physiology than either horses or dogs? Chimps. And guess what, they eat plants AND meat.

And I will say again: NO ONE thinks that humans evolved to ONLY eat meat. Of course we have adaptations to eat plants.  As you say, we evolved eating a plant-based diet... but not a plant-only diet. Like the b12 thing, I could find you dozens of vegetarian websites explaining that no, humans did not evolve to be vegetarians, nor is meat in reasonable quantities bad for you (such as here, here, and here).

None of this makes vegetarianism any less of a valid choice for yourself for any number of other reasons, so I'm not sure why your insisting on propping up claims that are known even among vegetarians to be untrue.