Notice, there is NO useful, meaningful, or even vaguely-scientific anatomical/physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore", and JM foolishly ignores the inescapable fact that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do! In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!
JM has made the all-to-common and fatal error in his totally unscientific and unsupportable claims by confusing Nature and culture; a grievous error which most grade school children would not make. Humans are clearly not natural "omnivores". Some are cultural "omnivores", and indeed must rely on cultural artifacts to raise, kill, butcher, cook, disguise with seasonings, cut up, and finally consume their animal prey. Again, the false definition rests on the phrase "capable of consuming"; however, humans have no natural capability to do so. If they did, they would. Thus, relying on an absurd false definition, JM inevitably and inescapably comes to a false conclusion.
Another insight into the falsity of this concept rests in the mistaken confusion, and proposed false-identity, of the verbs: to be, and to do. Being refers to our genetic code and its consequences, while doing is totally unrelated and a consequence of cultural programming.
Let's examine JM's muddled "thinking" a bit to see how completely absurd, and perhaps intentionally-misleading, the "capable" definition really is.
Humans are "capable" of flying through the air; that makes us birds or flying insects, right?
Humans are "capable" of traveling under water; that makes us fish or sea worms, right?
Humans are "capable" of tunneling through the earth; that makes us earthworms or moles, right?