Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/31/03 01:23 PM, isthatlegal wrote: for my work experience i worked at an abbatoir, and quite frankly, wen animals are killed,it is not humainly it is complete and utter toutiour <- soz bout spelling,

and what is the deal with muslims, they can only eat meat that has been killed INHUMAINLY, wot kind of "god" would set that as a rule??

Well religion is a dangerous thing, which can be interpreted over the centuries in various ways. And funnily how religion can control people. It's a tricky thing and I find any type of a religious fanatic extremely dangerous.

At 5/31/03 01:23 PM, isthatlegal wrote: for my work experience i worked at an abbatoir, and quite frankly, wen animals are killed,it is not humainly it is complete and utter toutiour <- soz bout spelling,

and what is the deal with muslims, they can only eat meat that has been killed INHUMAINLY, wot kind of "god" would set that as a rule??

ah, l'abbatoir.. i thought that halal meat was the other way around, animals had to be slaughtered in a humane way, just like with kosher meat? ive always wanted to learn how to be a kosher butcher.. i love meat and i love cooking it, i just want to know more about wher eit comes from. really nothing makes me hungrier than a large bloody carcass.

Animals have been slaughtered by humans for thousands of years. By now, they are probably used to it. They probably even like it. Animals would be offended if they weren't eaten.

At 5/31/03 03:00 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: Animals have been slaughtered by humans for thousands of years. By now, they are probably used to it. They probably even like it. Animals would be offended if they weren't eaten.

I surely would love to munch on this cat's head, listening to the monotonous sound of its skull being grinded by my teeth, tasting the exquisite juices of its young voluptuous brain, feeling the tenderness of its small slimy eyes rolling around in my mouth as I massage them with the tip of my tongue.

At 5/31/03 03:00 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: Animals have been slaughtered by humans for thousands of years. By now, they are probably used to it. They probably even like it. Animals would be offended if they weren't eaten.

dude, at least skin it and de-bone it first. I'm all for eating kitties, they taste like chicken, and all you need is a bowl of milk to catch one. Wouldnt be the first time I've eaten pussy....

You're all either affraid to face the consequences of your mindless self-indulgence or you just don't care about the preventable deaths of 250 000 000 peopel every year.

10% is all that's needed.

At 5/31/03 05:36 PM, nailbomb wrote: You're all either affraid to face the consequences of your mindless self-indulgence or you just don't care about the preventable deaths of 250 000 000 peopel every year.

10% is all that's needed.

Well, ok, let's say that all the people here at Newgrounds cut down by 10%. That won't be enough and persuading some of the rather fat greedy meat eaters would be quite hard. I'm sure I'm not eating that much meat anyway. Secondly, what makes you sure that any of that 10% food not consumed by us will go to the hungry. This is a corporate world, living for profit only. If we all stop eating meat, nobody will produce any meat and produce only the products in demand, say tomatoes and grain or whatever other veggie food. And this food will be similarly sold to those with money. There would be no difference whatsoever, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At 5/31/03 05:46 PM, antiqkk wrote:

At 5/31/03 05:36 PM, nailbomb wrote: You're all either affraid to face the consequences of your mindless self-indulgence or you just don't care about the preventable deaths of 250 000 000 peopel every year.

10% is all that's needed.

Well, ok, let's say that all the people here at Newgrounds cut down by 10%. That won't be enough and persuading some of the rather fat greedy meat eaters would be quite hard. I'm sure I'm not eating that much meat anyway. Secondly, what makes you sure that any of that 10% food not consumed by us will go to the hungry. This is a corporate world, living for profit only. If we all stop eating meat, nobody will produce any meat and produce only the products in demand, say tomatoes and grain or whatever other veggie food. And this food will be similarly sold to those with money. There would be no difference whatsoever, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never said to stop eating meat. Keep eating 90% of what you usually would eat. Agricultural companies will have plenty of leftover grain and there are non-profit organizations who ship grain from giant corporations and private farms and everything in between. Please don't think in an individual way because millions of people are thinking in a individual way. There can't be a collective without individuals. If you decide to change the world for the better, then change will happen.

WHAT'S THIS!?! MY GOAT BURGER IS SEVERELY UNDERCOOKED! TAKE IT BACK RIGHT NOW AND I DEMAND TO SEE YOUR MANAGER!

At 5/31/03 09:04 PM, nailbomb wrote: I never said to stop eating meat. Keep eating 90% of what you usually would eat. Agricultural companies will have plenty of leftover grain and there are non-profit organizations who ship grain from giant corporations and private farms and everything in between. Please don't think in an individual way because millions of people are thinking in a individual way. There can't be a collective without individuals. If you decide to change the world for the better, then change will happen.

I am aware of the charity organizations and their actions. However, what I'm trying to say that most of the world is profit oriented. This meaning that their supply depends on our demands of which ever product. If all people decide to cut down on meat by 10%, then this will happen rather gradually over long periods of time; today it will be my neighbour, tomorrow me and so on and so forth. However, the production of this meat will be graducally cut down as well meeting only the market demands and leaving no surpluses in the long run. You may say that grain leftovers will be made, but then again if demand for grain for the meat producers falls, so will the supply of grain.
If, suddenly, we all decide to cut back 10% today then tomorrow there will be an excess of 10% which the producers will have to sell of at a cheaper price or give away for free. Nevertheless, this excessive surplus will be created only once and in the future the supply will fall again.
I truly, however, doubt that all individuals will jointly cut back 10% of their diet tomorrow. Doesn't happen this way.
All I am trying to say is that from an economical point of view, everything depends on profit and what doesn't generate a profit won't be produced, that simple.

At 5/31/03 09:19 PM, antiqkk wrote: I truly, however, doubt that all individuals will jointly cut back 10% of their diet tomorrow. Doesn't happen this way.

It's true, I am merely offering a short-term solution until food is distributed equally. You're right, it won't be everyone who decides to cut back 10% of their daily meat intake.

But at least they're giving a second chance to someone that is dying from hunger.

At 5/31/03 09:27 PM, nailbomb wrote:

It's true, I am merely offering a short-term solution until food is distributed equally. You're right, it won't be everyone who decides to cut back 10% of their daily meat intake.

But at least they're giving a second chance to someone that is dying from hunger.

To give those people a chance I would cut back 20% tomorrow, even 30%. But what is my little slice of meat going to do for them. This has to be somehow organised among the entire population and everyone should be willing to think in this way. I am sure there are many people out there who would do the same thing if only it was somehow centrally planned. However, I can assure you that if some 10 activists decide to starve for 2 weeks somewhere in the middle of nowhere just to prove this point, people would simply ridicule them and not follow.
I understand the point you are trying to convey here and I am not against feeding those who are hungry at all. I myself always give money to homeless people who beg for change in the streets. I cannot merely walk by, because even if I know I'm not fucking rich, at least I have something to eat today, most of them don't (some are alcohlics, of course, and whatever I give them is spend on another sip of the enchanting fire liquid they so can't live without, but that isn't the point of my discussion here).
I however stress that we do not live in the world of decency and good will and even the few good people that are around and are not too selfish (we all to a degree) cannot do much about the starving masses of people in Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. Most people tend to isolate this whole idea, as being none of their business. Of course charities are formed (which not always deliver the the funds given to them to the targeted population). And even if they do, still the effect isn't too obvious is it. And these are actually centralised non-profit organisations, whose whole goal is to attarct people's attention and encourage the donation of money for the needy.

antiqkk, I think you shut up both angry vegetarians and selfish carnivores. You have one hell of a point.

At 5/31/03 10:06 PM, nailbomb wrote: antiqkk, I think you shut up both angry vegetarians and selfish carnivores. You have one hell of a point.

There is a point of course. And I cannot say I am not entirely not-selfish. But I am aware of the fact that many people are dying of diseases and hunger everywhere around the world. Just because I was lucky enough not to be born and live somewhere in Somali or Kenya, doesn't mean the problem "does not concern me".
My discussion here isn't really to make a point to the angry veggie-burger people or juicy meat lovers. It's rather the fact of how the system works. It does not matter if you eat vegetables. It will hardly help anyone, if you trade your 10 ounce steak for a 10 ounce veggie burger.
People arguing that those who eat meat are selfish, because they, vegetarians, eat only vegetables which cut down the water supply needed to harvest them bla blah blah.
It is more of a matter of centrally agreeing to eat less (maybe pay higher price for what you eat) so that food goes directly to those who are hungry (if we pay a higher price for our products at a lower quantity demand, then the producer firms may agree to supply this little excess for the Third World Countries).
But I am sure and correct me if I am wrong, hardly anyone will agree to pay higher prices for their meal. We are all selfish deep within. A radical change of human behavior and the whole concept of human nature is required. What can give that push?

At 5/31/03 10:23 PM, antiqkk wrote: But I am sure and correct me if I am wrong, hardly anyone will agree to pay higher prices for their meal.

People also don't like to pay higher prices for their gas, but if they have to, it doesn't stop them from driving a car. But some do drive less because of higher prices. So if you raise the meat prices (which is perfectly fine with me, since i'm veggie and i think it's fair too) people will eat less meat, and you have some extra money to give to the starvin marvins out there. Sure, some people will protest, but some people always do. Of course our lame ass governments are too afraid to do such a thing. Especially the donkey-brained conservative <cough>Bush<cough> governments out there.

At 5/23/03 10:30 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: f you guys love lamb you should try and buy new zealand lamb.. its the freshest and most delicious tasting lamb in the world, mostly because it is raised pretty much free range and new zealand has the strictest quality controls on food in the entire world. plus its totally organic for you hippie bastards out there.

the other night i ate this dish called lamb stewart i believe its lamb with a mustard sauce on it baked for along time ohh man was it delicious. i love wholesale markets and their massive NZ lamb roasts.

anyone else have good lamb recepies?? plus what is everyones favorite wild game meat? mine might be emu.. altho alligator is pretty good but only cooked cetain ways.

Yums! that's a graphic description (rubs tummy.. salivates unnecessarily) i'm hoping that they can bring the giant extinct NZ Moa bird back from the dead by scientific cloning :(_yeah, it was "eaten out" once already) aah, tasty old Moaburgers..

More Power to our scientific communities!

At 6/1/03 09:48 AM, Veggiemeal wrote:

At 5/31/03 10:23 PM, antiqkk wrote: But I am sure and correct me if I am wrong, hardly anyone will agree to pay higher prices for their meal.

People also don't like to pay higher prices for their gas, but if they have to, it doesn't stop them from driving a car. But some do drive less because of higher prices. So if you raise the meat prices (which is perfectly fine with me, since i'm veggie and i think it's fair too) people will eat less meat, and you have some extra money to give to the starvin marvins out there.

You are drifting away from the point here. Fuel is taxed, that is why the price is high. The revenue is used by the government for subsidies and government spending and welfare here and there.
You are saying that meat should be taxed because you personally don't eat it. Well, what I'm saying is that why not tax everything then. I will tax your vegetables too, you know. You will pay a higher price too for your meal.
You are so pro high prices for meat simply because you eat it and the point you are trying to make here is far from the point I made previously. You are basing your post on your own selfish assumption of other, not you eating that meat, thus you won't have to suffer a high price in case it goes up. Bear in mind also, that when a tax is imposed by the government, both consumers and producers share the tax incidence and thus, the revenue for producers goes down as well, decreasing profits and decreasing the supply.

At 6/1/03 01:43 PM, antiqkk wrote: You are drifting away from the point here. Fuel is taxed, that is why the price is high. The revenue is used by the government for subsidies and government spending and welfare here and there.
You are saying that meat should be taxed because you personally don't eat it. Well, what I'm saying is that why not tax everything then. I will tax your vegetables too, you know. You will pay a higher price too for your meal.
You are so pro high prices for meat simply because you eat it and the point you are trying to make here is far from the point I made previously. You are basing your post on your own selfish assumption of other, not you eating that meat, thus you won't have to suffer a high price in case it goes up. Bear in mind also, that when a tax is imposed by the government, both consumers and producers share the tax incidence and thus, the revenue for producers goes down as well, decreasing profits and decreasing the supply.

Dude, you are accusing me of being pro-price raise just because i'm veggie. Of course, I can't denie that's partially true. It would make no difference for me. But there are other reasons why I think meat could be more expensive. Meat is a luxury article. You can survive with less, or even without meat. And with the extra money you can feed the poor countries. Sure, it might not be the best thing to do for the economy, but we are rich enough already compared to other country's.

At 6/1/03 02:47 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Dude, you are accusing me of being pro-price raise just because i'm veggie. Of course, I can't denie that's partially true. It would make no difference for me. But there are other reasons why I think meat could be more expensive. Meat is a luxury article. You can survive with less, or even without meat. And with the extra money you can feed the poor countries. Sure, it might not be the best thing to do for the economy, but we are rich enough already compared to other country's.

We are omnivores, as such we like eating both meat and vegetables. However, you point out that meat is a luxury to us. Why are not the vegetables? Thousands of people could survive without them easily. Eat their steak every day, drink some artificial vitamins and you're set.
So let's say that the government imposes a tax on every single product, I am sure most of the people won't be happy with it. Even you won't be happy paying the double amount for your veggieburger. There will be strikes and protests everywhere, because people tend to concentrate on their own position rather than the condition of those starving.
Noe, will the government really use the tax revenue to buy food for the starving third world countries instead of spending it on their intelligence and weapons and such crap in pursuit of domination (off subject kinda but still relevant in a way).
The point here is not of the country being filthy rich and helping others, which can be already done on a constant basis, but will you sacrifice a part of your hard earned income on something, which you can't be sure of working out successfully.

At 6/1/03 03:11 PM, antiqkk wrote: We are omnivores, as such we like eating both meat and vegetables. However, you point out that meat is a luxury to us. Why are not the vegetables? Thousands of people could survive without them easily. Eat their steak every day, drink some artificial vitamins and you're set.
So let's say that the government imposes a tax on every single product, I am sure most of the people won't be happy with it. Even you won't be happy paying the double amount for your veggieburger. There will be strikes and protests everywhere, because people tend to concentrate on their own position rather than the condition of those starving.
Noe, will the government really use the tax revenue to buy food for the starving third world countries instead of spending it on their intelligence and weapons and such crap in pursuit of domination (off subject kinda but still relevant in a way).
The point here is not of the country being filthy rich and helping others, which can be already done on a constant basis, but will you sacrifice a part of your hard earned income on something, which you can't be sure of working out successfully.

A lot of vitamins you can't get from artificial stuff really. If you have a meat-only diet you'd die in two weeks. So that's all crap. But you're absolutley right when you say the government probably wouldn't give that money to the poor countries. Therefore, it should not be the government deciding what happens to that extra money, but an independent non commercial organisation. The government should only oblige the meat inustries to pay a certain amount of money to that organisation. Sure, the chance that this would ever happen is eeny weeny small, but hey, it's always nice to discuss.

At 6/1/03 03:34 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: A lot of vitamins you can't get from artificial stuff really. If you have a meat-only diet you'd die in two weeks. So that's all crap. But you're absolutley right when you say the government probably wouldn't give that money to the poor countries. Therefore, it should not be the government deciding what happens to that extra money, but an independent non commercial organisation. The government should only oblige the meat inustries to pay a certain amount of money to that organisation. Sure, the chance that this would ever happen is eeny weeny small, but hey, it's always nice to discuss.

Well I am alive am I not? I eat meat, bread whatever, and often don't eat vegetables for long. And believe me nothing bad happens to me after two weeks of not eating vegetables (please don't say "but you ARE eating more than just meat", because any person who is a regular meat consumer, also eats bread, eggs and drinks milk. Your posts are mainly targeted against the meat part of the whole diet).
Then again, why should the government only oblige the meat industries to pay. You are playing fair only to your side of the game, which is you stll won't pay more, because you don't eat meat! You are willing to help the starving, but not at your own cost, just like millions of others. As I previously stated in one of my posts, I would cut back on my diet 10% or more per cent, if only I knew this was somehow planned out to really help the poor. I will NOT, on the other hand, cut down just because a bunch of angry vegetarians are telling me that grain, which could have been used to feed the poor, is wasted on rearing my cows and pigs. Because, this grain would NOT have been used to feed the poor. This grain would simply not be produced at all. Therefore, your argument would remain the same today, even if we consumed 50% less meat. The grain supplied would only be suffiecient to produce those 50% less of meat that is in demand. And you would come to me and say I am bad because if I cut down 20% further on my meat diet, the grain that is used to produce it could have been used to feed the poor etc etc and so on and son on.
Unless, the system somehow organises itself for equal distribution of all food at a higher price (extra money collected of course going to the poor, and not anything else) then do not come and accuse me of being the cause of people starving in the world, because I like my steak. Hell, I could tell you that if you stop consuming 50% of your grain you could feed 60 million people. Your argument (angry vegetarians generally) is not realistic and not acceptable in the logic of this this system.

At 6/1/03 03:54 PM, antiqkk wrote: Well I am alive am I not? I eat meat, bread whatever, and often don't eat vegetables for long. And believe me nothing bad happens to me after two weeks of not eating vegetables (please don't say "but you ARE eating more than just meat", because any person who is a regular meat consumer, also eats bread, eggs and drinks milk. Your posts are mainly targeted against the meat part of the whole diet).
Then again, why should the government only oblige the meat industries to pay. You are playing fair only to your side of the game, which is you stll won't pay more, because you don't eat meat! You are willing to help the starving, but not at your own cost, just like millions of others. As I previously stated in one of my posts, I would cut back on my diet 10% or more per cent, if only I knew this was somehow planned out to really help the poor. I will NOT, on the other hand, cut down just because a bunch of angry vegetarians are telling me that grain, which could have been used to feed the poor, is wasted on rearing my cows and pigs. Because, this grain would NOT have been used to feed the poor. This grain would simply not be produced at all. Therefore, your argument would remain the same today, even if we consumed 50% less meat. The grain supplied would only be suffiecient to produce those 50% less of meat that is in demand. And you would come to me and say I am bad because if I cut down 20% further on my meat diet, the grain that is used to produce it could have been used to feed the poor etc etc and so on and son on.
Unless, the system somehow organises itself for equal distribution of all food at a higher price (extra money collected of course going to the poor, and not anything else) then do not come and accuse me of being the cause of people starving in the world, because I like my steak. Hell, I could tell you that if you stop consuming 50% of your grain you could feed 60 million people. Your argument (angry vegetarians generally) is not realistic and not acceptable in the logic of this this system.

Man, stop telling me i'm only for higher prices because i'm veggie. We've been through that. And I AM going to say you are eating more than just meat, because if you wouldn't you WOULD die. Every idiot knows that eating nothing but meat is lethal. So your previous argument is still crap.

And yes, higher prices wouldn't work in the current system, but LIKE I ALREADY FUCKING TOLD YOU we have to change the system. Stop repeating will ya?

At 6/1/03 04:04 PM, Veggiemeal wrote:

At 6/1/03 03:54 PM, antiqkk wrote: Well I am alive am I not? I eat meat, bread whatever, and often don't eat vegetables for long. And believe me nothing bad happens to me after two weeks of not eating vegetables (please don't say "but you ARE eating more than just meat", because any person who is a regular meat consumer, also eats bread, eggs and drinks milk. Your posts are mainly targeted against the meat part of the whole diet).

Man, stop telling me i'm only for higher prices because i'm veggie. We've been through that. And I AM going to say you are eating more than just meat, because if you wouldn't you WOULD die. Every idiot knows that eating nothing but meat is lethal. So your previous argument is still crap.

And yes, higher prices wouldn't work in the current system, but LIKE I ALREADY FUCKING TOLD YOU we have to change the system. Stop repeating will ya?

I peronally asked you not to say "And I AM going to say you are eating more than just meat, because if you wouldn't you WOULD die. Every idiot knows that eating nothing but meat is lethal. So your previous argument is still crap." Because you are pointless. You eat more then just vegetables and you rant at me just because I eat meat, thinking that this is the cause to all evil. If you can't support your arguments, refrain from saying "fucking" because that doesn't justify you. And you may as well stop repeating your crap and stop living in your veggie dream and for once admit that you are not the saviour of the world because you stopped eating meat. It didn't help absolutely anyone. I told you that I would help the poor people if it was organised, but I won't become a stupid prick who eats only vegetables (and admit you plonker, how much better it is to eat both vegetables and meat, rather then just diss me for what I do) and complains to everyone around me that meat eaters are bad as they are selfish and I am so good because I feed the hungry Africans. You don't help anyone. You simply eat what you prefer, so climb out of your hole and realise it: you chose what you like in life and what you should eat, these are your personal preferences and do not show that you sacrifice yourself in the name of poor. When you personally cut down 20% on your diet, take the saved money, go to Africa with a big packet of food and feed the people, then come to me and say "yes my ways of living help people, and yours don't!". Then I will be willing to admit you're better than me and you have a point. Until then I am not convinced I am so bad for eating nice tasty meat.

It seems we're never really gonna solve this, but I gotta admit, you have a point. But there are other reasons why I don't eat meat, like the animals and all that stuff. I respect your opinion, so you just have to respect mine. If you want to eat meat, fine, i can't stop you. Enjoy it, because someone died for it.

At 6/2/03 03:05 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: If you want to eat meat, fine, i can't stop you. Enjoy it, because someone died for it.

That's someTHING, not someONE. Animals arent people, and they dont have a moral code like people do. It would be different if animals didnt ever eat people, but they do. Crocodiles, Bears, Tigers, Lions, Sharks, have been know to attack and eat humans, and most other animals have no moral compunction about hurting us. By eating meat I only continue a system of natural energy transfer that has existed since before humans climbed down from the trees. To say you are more intelligent than millions of years of evolution is arrogant and willfully ignorant of the natural life cycle.

Ahem, as I pointed out earlier the problems with food shortages wouldn't be solved with the use of less meat the world is currently providing more than enough food to feed it's inhabitants. Once again the problem lies in distribution not production.

At 6/2/03 03:28 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: That's someTHING, not someONE. Animals arent people, and they dont have a moral code like people do. It would be different if animals didnt ever eat people, but they do. Crocodiles, Bears, Tigers, Lions, Sharks, have been know to attack and eat humans, and most other animals have no moral compunction about hurting us. By eating meat I only continue a system of natural energy transfer that has existed since before humans climbed down from the trees. To say you are more intelligent than millions of years of evolution is arrogant and willfully ignorant of the natural life cycle.

You are saying that people are higher than animals because they have a moral code. And that's exactly what vegetarianism is: a moral code. So by not eating meat i am by your way of reasoning more human than you. Gnah!

At 6/3/03 09:39 AM, Veggiemeal wrote:
You are saying that people are higher than animals because they have a moral code. And that's exactly what vegetarianism is: a moral code. So by not eating meat i am by your way of reasoning more human than you. Gnah!

Or maybe you just have a different, inferior moral code to those who honor the cycle of life and do eat meat.

At 6/2/03 03:05 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: It seems we're never really gonna solve this, but I gotta admit, you have a point. But there are other reasons why I don't eat meat, like the animals and all that stuff. I respect your opinion, so you just have to respect mine. If you want to eat meat, fine, i can't stop you. Enjoy it, because someone died for it.

I did not say I do not respect your opinion. I respect your opinion in the sense that every person has the right to decide what his/her diest will consist of. My best friend is a vegetarian. Many people I know are vegetarians because they choose so for one reason or the other; either they do like the taste of it, or they may not like the idea of eating an animal who was killed. I have a problem with those vegetarian who blame me for all deadly sins, because I eat that meat. I do not respect those who attack me with unjustified comments to make me feel bad for what I eat. I, for one, know that it is not my fault that people are starving somewhere in Africa, just because I eat the meat. Thos vegetarians who think they feed poor nations by not eating meat are obviouly up in the clouds, soaring through their retarded dream. The problem is not that we eat all the meat there is, but rather the distribution of this meat (or any other food sourse, mind you). People who cannot afford to pay for it, won't get any as those produce meat want profit. If you can't pay for the meat, why shoul they produce it for you. It is selfish yes, it is not nice, but it his how we humans live in our system. You can hardly help anyone, by accusing me (not personally you Veggiemeal, I mean anyone who does) of eating all the food that could have been used to feed other, because this food would not have been used to feed the hungry if I didn't eat it.

At 6/2/03 03:28 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 6/2/03 03:05 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: If you want to eat meat, fine, i can't stop you. Enjoy it, because someone died for it.

That's someTHING, not someONE. Animals arent people, and they dont have a moral code like people do. It would be different if animals didnt ever eat people, but they do. Crocodiles, Bears, Tigers, Lions, Sharks, have been know to attack and eat humans, and most other animals have no moral compunction about hurting us. By eating meat I only continue a system of natural energy transfer that has existed since before humans climbed down from the trees. To say you are more intelligent than millions of years of evolution is arrogant and willfully ignorant of the natural life cycle.

Yes, it is only natural for humans to eat meat, as that is what we have been doing ever since the dawn of time. Just because we developed a certain code of morals it does not make us barbarians killing for food. Cannibalism is of course is not accepted anymore but we are still allowed to kill a rabbit if we want to eat it, just like a wolf is allowed to kill this rabbit if he wants to munch on it for dinner.