Being vegan

Your point: "The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all? " Good point. So you are saying that many of us do our bit, for example charity work, and are not vegan. You should of expanded this point further, for its the only point I have heard from a meat-eater that I have found substantial. But it doesnt mean in any way, that eating meat is less bad than I already believe it is. But it does pose a threat to this particular debate, due to the reckless and cocky nature of my opening statement. However, I will attempt to refute. Lets take an imaginary man. He devotes his life to charity, he spends all of his time and effort on helping people who need help. He eats meat. So he is not less caring or more selfish as he is very caring and selfless. But he must be more ignorant to life on earth because if he is so much moved by the needy, then he would care for the needy animals too. So if he is genuine in his compassion, he would care for the animals too. If he eats meat, then he must be somewhat ignorant to what he is supporting-either he has never questioned it, he thinks that animals are like robots or he thinks that they have happy lives. All three are examples of ignorance. At least, more ignorance, too animals, than vegans. You say: "We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder, but because it was introduced to us, it's hard to go back." That logic is what keeps us from moving forward. You admit it's wrong, how can you then condone it on the grounds it can feel good, without sounding like somebody who may have knowledge of right and wrong, but has little intention of actually doing the right thing? Slavery was maintained on your logic would you not agree? I will tackle your point regain riding murder. You say murder is unjustified killing, what does that really mean? So you can kill something and it not be murder? The definitions are irrelevant to the reality of death. Does the fact that it doesn't fit the definition of murder, make it any less unfair? Besides that, animals cannot even be 'murdered' by the Oxford dictionary's definition of the word so this terminology class is irrelevant. But you also say something else wrong: 'murder is unjustified, killing animals is justified'. Murders are justified to the murderer. And how is killing an animal for a pleasurable meal, more justifiable than killing a person for revenge? Revenge seems more justifiable than a meal to me. You point about them dying if they where set free is a total contradiction. So on the one hand you seem to care for the survival of the species, but really it's just so they can serve you. We don't have to murder all the animals, that are going to be murdered anyway, we just stop getting them to mate. And no, the species wouldn't die out, Zoo's and pet animal loves will make sure they don't. And your point about the economy. Not eating meat could end world hunger. It takes 24x more clean water to make a pound of meat than a pound of grain. It takes something like 15 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. And this debate is about individuals, not the broader society. However for the record, I believe it would be a positive thing for the world, and I would argue that in another debate.