You seem to have ignored this argument (twice) which seems pretty good
Posted by: shOOt_u_ded
I don' think you understand human behavioral psychology fairly well.
See, most human morals are aimed at societal health and order. People who kill other humans disrupt society, cause fear, and cause detriment to the species, so of course we'd see it as bad. However, raising animals and killing them for food helps feed people and allows society to thrive.
Also, humans have been hunting and eating meat for hundreds of millenia. It's frankly silly to claim that we somehow aren't 'designed' to eat meat, when we've been doing it for as long as our species has existed. We're clearly an omnivorous species.
Allow me to ask you some questions. Have you ever swatted a fly? Do you think swatting a fly is immoral? How about stepping on a cockroach? Destroying a wasp's nest? Catching a mouse in a mouse trap? Shooting a rabid racoon?
My point is: Where you you draw the line here? At what point does killing an organism become 'wrong?' I think you'll find that where you put that line yourself is exactly as arbitrary as those who give humans special privilege.
Personally, I draw the line at organisms capable of sentient thought, and pets. Why? Because that's the point when it 'feels' wrong to me. I suppose empathy is the deciding factor to me; it's tough to empathize with an organism that can't really think. As for pets, it's just because I like them. Once again, arbitrary.
If you don't want to eat mean, feel free. That's your choice to make, but you shouldn't be so simplistic if you want to convince others.