That's not true, the same can be said for someone who eats meat, the incidence of iron and zinc deficiency among long-term vegetarians is similar to that of non-vegetarians. It all depends on how well a person manages their diet. Whole grains and legumes provide all the amino acid and zinc a person needs, and it never hurts to supplement your diet, whether you eat meat or not, with vitamins.

Eating meat has nothing to do with having a large brain, science has already disputed that argument. Elephants have the largest brain size of all land mammals, does that make them more intelligent than human beings?

Human beings are the only supposed "omnivorous" species who cooks and seasons their meat, all others eat it raw. When you eat your meat fresh off the bone all juicy with blood, then you can come back here and claim your a true omnivore, til then your argument that human beings are omnivorous is invalid.

About dead flesh being diseased, why do you think it's insisted that you cook it thoroughly? Do you think mad cow disease fell out of the sky?

And your argument about meat having all this protein, more protein can be found in a stalk of broccoli than a pound of beef. For someone who is so sure that they aren't a fool, you really do say some foolish things.

Wean yourselves. Human beings are the only pathetic species that consumes milk after babyhood, somethings wrong with that picture.

If you're so worried about plants feeling pain, then maybe you should eat dirt and rocks. Plants do not feel pain, and they won't feel pain no matter how much you try to convince yourself of it.

Really? stfu, I can't stand people like you, mind your own effing business. You have no right to tell someone whether their views are "consistent" or not. Go suck a giant toe.

I'm open minded. There has always been more than one religion, there is no such thing as a true religion.

He's a people president, he actually cares about American citizens.

The tiger can defend itself in water but the shark is fast and would tear it to shreds. On land the shark would only be able to flop around, so the tiger would definitely win. I'm on the fence! But I like tigers.

Before written documentation, yes people would have been guessing. But since we have first hand accounts of what took place in the past recorded on paper we know the events are factual, maybe somewhat obscured, but it's there for everyone who knows how to read.

Not necessarily, although they could be and most of the time they are, this is not always the case.