Non-valid arguments for abstaining meat

False arguments for not eating meat refuted
Humans are not equipped with the dental and digestive facilities to eat meat.
(Even turned around, this argument is not valid for eating meat) a human can digest meat well when taken in moderation.
People can choose what they want to eat, animals cannot.
That makes us responsible, but it is not an argument against eating meat.
Eating no meat at all is healthier.
That doesn't make eating meat unhealthy.
Killing animals is sad.
That is a personal opinion.
Animals suffer when butchered.
Dying a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey is at least just as painful.
Humans don't need meat.
Unnecessary food (for example candy) is not always unhealthy or ethically unacceptable.

This article is part of a series on falsities and demagogy
Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid. That goes for pro and contra. We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument. Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in. Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general. Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate. So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent. Click here for tips on how to react to animal-unfriendly behavior of others.

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups