Eating Meat is Unethical!

Thank you Mr. JustinAMoffatt for your arguments. I will provide my reply below to your most recent arguments below. In response to: C1: Humans capabilities justify actions, due to similar animal behavior.I do not believe that we as humans take cues from animals to justify our behaviors. Animals and humans are totally different animals (no pun intended). Animals don't wear clothes, have sex in the open, they don't have court system to resolve disputes, thus they resort to violence. They are not capable of thinking. And again, they cannot grow crops, don't have refrigerators to store food, can't follow cookbook recipes, don't have kitchens to prepare meals and cannot make sauces, spices, gravies, curries, fried food, desserts, snacks and a thousands of other things. Bears are unable to make rational choices. So when you say "Bear has the ability to eat plants and animals, do we call a bear unethical?", I say no. Once again, animal ethics and human ethics operate on different levels. The whole point of my argument was that we cannot apply same ethical standards and use the same arguments of "Capabilities justify actions" - In other words - We should do it because animals do it too - is not a valid justification for our actions. Bears cannot think philosophically to apply ethics. Their intellectual capabilities are far lower than human intelligence. Same as when a child cries and throws tantrums when he is upset, but most rational adults do not. We cannot apply same standards to creatures of lower intelligence as we do to fully grown adult humans. Your second argument: C2: Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted. Although meat eating is accepted in the society, in the past we also accepted segregation, slavery, second class status of women etc. Even today, under sharia law, a society can accept beheading, stoning to death of adulterers, dismembering for theft and/or petty crimes, child marriages of 13 year old girls, lashing teenage girls for having an "affair" with boys etc. In our country (USA) we do not accept these practices as moral or ethical. In fact in most parts of the world these practices are considered barbaric. Any ways, I wanted to focus on the argument from the perspective of "Capabilities imply justification of action", which we both seem to agree is not a valid argument. In other words, canines are required as much to eat an apple and pineapple as for eating meat. The original argument I made was that conveniently using our anatomical structure to imply application for one use while ignoring the requirements for other uses is not rational. C3: Eating animals does not cause them to suffer.Animals experience severe pain and go through massive suffering in captive farming. This can be easily verified as the animals are led to their sacrificial point in an abattoir. There is no such thing as humane slaughter just as there is no such thing as humane murder or humane sexual assault. Yes, the death penalty is carried out with least amount of suffering human possible but this does not happen when humans are killed outside of prison walls by other humans. Again thanks for presenting your counter points. So again, my original focus was to refute the idea that we should eat animals because we have the capabilities to do so. As pointed out earlier, we have capabilities to do a lot more harm to ourselves and our fellow humans. We restrain ourselves from causing harm to other people and our planet as much as we can. Having capabilities to perform sexual assaults and carry out massacres does not mean we should or will do it. The same rules should be applied to the concept of meat eating since there are alternatives available to us to live a compassionate, healthy life. Thank you.