Article #3: Are We Meat Eaters?

Almost any argument can be effectively destroyed on the emotional level. When you invoke a picture of realism in the presentation of argument it will either build or destroy your argument. The truth should win out regardless of what side of an argument you're on.

Hygienists have often been taunted with "I don't want any of your rabbit food." An emotional rejoinder that leaves them agag is "I'd prefer it to your buzzard food."

Some folks will tell you humans are meat-eaters and that they personally are meat-eaters. Of course they're not true carnivores. You can create revulsion in them for meat-eating by simply telling them: "When you can take a live rabbit and crush its head in your mouth, start chewing it up and eat it, hair, skin, bones, brain, gristle, guts and all, then you can tell me you're a meat-eater. Until you can do that with relish, get off your phony argument." That will really floor them.

Another sure argument that will floor your detractors or intellectual protagonists is to ask some pertinent but innocent question. You might ask your meat-eating argumentative friend if he or she secretes uricase. Of course few will know what you're talking about. "Uricase? What's that?" they may ask. You counter, "You don't know what uricase is and you're telling me you're a meat-eater? Uricase is an enzyme that is secreted in the intestinal tract of all carnivorous animals! Humans do not secrete this enzyme. Thus, when humans eat meat they cannot break down toxic uric acid. When uric acid is absorbed it creates havoc in the body. To neutralize uric acid the body must draw upon its reserves of valuable alkaline minerals, especially calcium." Because grain and meat-eating humans have a predominantly acid-forming diet, the body must oftentimes get the necessary base minerals from its bones to neutralize the acids. The resulting calcium urates cause kidney stones, accretions in the joints that result in arthritis and, in all events, osteoporosis of both bones and teeth.

You can thoughtfully adduce many arguments when you are "homed in" on the criteria for our natural diet. For instance, you might ask your detractor to picture a three year old child in a playpen. Into the pen we place a rabbit and an apple. Will the child be hostile to the rabbit, kill and eat it and play with the apple? Or will the child eat the apple, and befriend and play with the rabbit?

It is said there is no winning an argument. "Convinced against his will a man remains of the same opinion still." But, if there are spectators who observe out of interest, the arguments are telling. When eating meat in the future it will be difficult for him or her to eat it without conjuring up the picture of blood, offal, bones, hair, etc.