To the left (below) the non-valid argument To the right the contra argument

Non-valid arguments for abstaining meat


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

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups:

10 myths about Vegans
factory farming
ignoring animal rights
advocating animal rights
experimentation with animals
hunting for pleasure
seal hunt
mink farming

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.

Mail us if you encounter other or new (counter)-arguments.

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.