u love animals?

So what if it's normal? Why do you exclude human flesh? You are already eating the flesh of animal corpses who did not consent to be slaughtered. Why should you draw the line at humans?

Meat absolutely is not necessary for living a healthy and enjoyable life. In fact, meat consumption has a direct negative impact on both due to the health complications that accompany it.

No, plants do not feel pain. That is literally impossible because they lack the nervous system whereby nociception is possible. There is no evidence whatsoever that nociception is possible without a nervous system, and there has yet to be found an analogous system whereby nociception (or some analogous experience thereof) could be experienced by plant life. Clearly, your understanding of pain has no basis in science. Even if that was true, however, then the ethical position would still be a strict vegetarian diet similar to the ones adopted by Jains because that would entail the least possible amount of plant deaths. Every single animal raised for slaughter has to eat plants (or other animals) to survive, and in doing so remains an inefficient food source which costs more plant lives than it would take to simply eat the plants we feed the animals.

I don't care in the slightest what fantasy or fictional deities you believe in to cope with the meaningless of existence and the suffering therein, nor do I respect using those delusions as a basis upon which normative claims could be established. As far as I'm aware, however, no religious text explicitly states that animals go to Heaven (or whatever fictional paradise that serves as its equivalent), so even according to your mythology that is not true. Even if it was true, that is not grounds to justify the slaughter of animals, and not only because consumption of animal products are not necessary for survival.

I will be "butthurt" about people's eating habits when their eating habits directly and indirectly contribute to anthropogenic global warming (which is leading us to planetary suicide), food insecurity, global hunger, inefficient agricultural methods, a culture of violence, morally and ethically inconsistent behavior and values, and the systematic slaughter of an incalculable number of animals every year simply because people like you are too much of moral cowards to give up that momentary sensation on your palate when you eat an animal's flesh to save that animal's life. Why should I respect someone who is too much of an ignorant and spineless sociopath to make a basic change in their life that would yield incalculable benefits to themselves and to society all because it might be a minor inconvenience for a few weeks or months? I shouldn't and I don't.

You are contributing to the animal equivalent of over 25,000 Holocausts every year. Yes, I will make that comparison because it helps contextualize the emotional gravity of a crime to which you are unsympathetic but nevertheless complicit. If you don't like that comparison, since it reveals an uncomfortable truth about your dietary practices and the world in which we live, then perhaps you should have some integrity and make changes in your life to rectify that qualm of yours rather than requesting that those who call attention to that fact cease doing so.

I stopped reading and lol'ed away after you said: "plants can feel pain".

This is how myths, rumors and religion are passed around. Some moron says plants can feel pain without any research or evidence and a bunch of sheep just accept it without even analyzing it.

+1 forgot to mention that

No need to feed lions—or any strictly carnivorous animal—tofu. We can either genetically engineer lions to subsist on strict vegetarian diets, or we can castrate them to extinction as a last resort.

A basic study of human evolutionary history as it pertains to diet would demonstrate that the vast majority of human history has consisted of a plant-based diet that heavily emphasized fruits, nuts, and berries up until recently. During a short period, after the invention of fire, meat was consumed, which provided a quick source of calories and complete proteins. At the advent of the agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, which signaled the beginning of the Holocene era, humanity took back to consuming a largely plant-based diet with meat as a delicacy. Only after industrialization did meat become a major staple for the Western masses, since meat was historically a food cherished by the rich and powerful precisely because it was a rare and inefficient food source.

Although pointing to human dental structure is a well-known fallacy that no informed person would use as a contention for eating meat, and not only because implies specious premises which must be accepted to be a coherent argument, even by that standard there is overwhelming evidence based on human dental structure alone that our species evolved and is principally adapted to eat a plant-based diet. For example, the existence of wisdom teeth is direct evolutionary evidence that humans evolved on a plant-based diet, which is consistent with the dietary patterns of our evolutionary ancestors. Only recently has meat consumption been a regular part of human diet, and only in some regions, which may have been why that extra set of molars have become vestigial in anatomically modern humans.

Do you have any other unscientific, illogical, and ignorant remarks to make in an attempt to show me up and defend your untenable dietary practices, which I can promptly correct and refute, or are you through?

We're not serpents. ;_; It's the Greek language and it's a harder language than parseltongue. xD

i didn't know the name.
but i know the food... we have that as well.
we refer to it by the skewer it's made on (shipud in hebrew)

Penguin is on my "must-try" list. I'm very curious to the taste