Why Meat Is Not Meant To Be Consumed By Humans

Part I is about the moralistic reasons
Part II is about the dietary reasons
Part III is about the environmental issues

Part I
Morals Of Killing A Sentient Being

When it comes to the act of killing in a 'civilized society', the reason for killing another person can be justified in terms of defense.  However, when animals are concerned----logic does not register. 

Since these sentient beings in question are defined as animals then the reason for killing becomes one of exploitation as a means of justifying and the act is diminished.  In times of slavery, they considered blacks to be less than a full human. That was the law---let that sink in.

You would think this would be obvious an obviously logical answer as to right and wrong, but we humans tend to have a way of rationalizing things, to make a wrong into a right.  Especially things that people do in mass, that are thought to be normal even though they can be determined to be either scientifically or morally wrong are justified.  All people, for example, seem to want to drive cars in mass even though it is clearly destructive to the planet..  Slavery was once practiced and considered to even be a right or just traditionally accepted.  When a wrong is bent into a right it equates to manufacturing a lie and living in a lie.

When things are done in mass that are not very intelligent, they can do a lot of damage.   There are lobbies behind pushing things that are bad for people and they are very powerful.. It's easy for them to trick, deceive, and ultimately mislead people.  Our evolution here is at stake! But, Corporate profit (the bottom line on an accounting ledger) is the only concern of powerful business people and maintaining their monopoly on a product.  This case if valid when you speak of the industry of food, nutrition, and it even parallels with the healthcare industry--which doesn't really aim to keep us healthy.

Moralistically, you would think it would be easy to prove the wrong in killing an animal and consuming it.  However, this can lead to intense debate, and suddenly the act of killing is condoned. It is amazing---if you look up the word "murder"---it only pertains to an act committed against humans.

In these debates, some of the more conscious ones will at least agree that it is wrong to kill animals, in the way they are killed through mass animal agriculture, and that something needs to be done or they will just simply pay more for their kill because they are only concerned with quality.. While others will go a step further and say---it's okay if someone hunts their own prey.  The latter at least reduces the mass murder aspect of animal farms.

 For the sake of argument, let's now compare animal bondage and slaughter, to that of slavery and mass murder... 

 History of slavery
Traditionally, it was thought owning slaves was perfectly okay, in most parts of the ancient world that led to our world today.  Many people don't even realize that slavery still goes on in these so-called 'modern times'.  Modern slavery is overlooked, because of the mighty dollar, consumerism, and because nobody sees slaves that are well hidden in foreign lands thanks to reckless globalization and blind consumerism.  If people just let things slide, you compromise morals. There's nothing moralistically right about keeping a person in chains to use as a slave.

When I see people try to rationalize killing animals for food and they come up with "it's okay if" arguments. I view it in the same light as rationalizing slave owners that claimed to "treat their slaves good," as if it wasn't so bad----considering this or that--- they just pile up the BS to rationalize exploitation of sentient beings.

It's like what part of murder aren't you getting?  But murder is not against the law (nor was owning slaves), if an animals is killed---it's not even considered murder... See you can't even use the term "murder" to sensitive meat eaters, who's ego will be hurt, their jaws drop, they act like you are crazy, or when they lose an ethical argument they start claiming how aggressive vegans are..

How dare we 'aggressive vegans' point out ethical concerns of mass murder. 

Since, there's no law against murder for animals----there's no law against mass murder either. Let that sink in. And this is pretty much globally accepted, both legally, and throughout mainstream society. Species of animals are getting eradicated, thanks in a large part due to animal agriculture because of it's toxic effects or in the case of ocean life over 4 billion sentiment beings are killed each year because of humans for the purpose of consumption. Regardless of how detrimental it gets, it doesn't seem to bother meat and dairy consumers enough to change their ways before there's no turning back and we end up living in an artificial planet that looks like the Death Star in Star Wars.. 

Many are aware of the toxic environment we live in but  are not really doing anything at the core of the problem. People are looking to future technology to save the planet, rather than change our ways to combat ignorance.

Part II
Meat is not meant for humans to consume because of health reasons.

A dead piece of flesh that is consumed is the lowest form of caloric consumption.  Foods have frequencies, they have phytochemicals and enzymes in them. I don't view meat which is dead flesh to be food.  Dead flesh has a dead frequency, while natural foods that go through the photosynthesis cycle possess energy from the sun. The dead foods or one's that are toxic are not meant for us to consume, because they make our body over acidic. 

A tiger gets to 20x the acidity levels to digest flesh from it's prey. They are natural predators genetically.  A natural flesh eater has fangs and a digestive track that is designed to get to the required acid levels. 
....
---Article Under Edit---
---Stay Tuned For Updates---
....