Non sequitur, food isn't synonymous with killing animals
>Almost all life consumes other life for survival
Appeal to popularity, almost all life does all sorts of things that we don't condone or have decided is suboptimal.
>There is nothing more natural than eating.
Non sequitur and naturalistic fallacy. Eating is natural but that doesn't imply killing and eating animals is natural. Even if both are, that isn't in and of itself a valid justification for that behaviour.
I presuppose the need to justify just about everything actually. Your surprise at this approach kind of explains the gaping logical holes in your previous comments. Please though, continue with your "specific" statements, I'm enjoying this.
EDIT: mixed you up with the other commenter, disregard the last 3 sentences, sorry.
If we were a society that was capable of doing this at scale, there would certainly be far less of a reason to be vegan, but I hesitate to say there would be no reason at all.
Sure it does. But eating is not one of those things. And you're going to have to do a lot better than that to convince people that eating shouldn't be condoned or is suboptimal.
"Non sequitur and naturalistic fallacy."
No.
"Eating is natural but that doesn't imply killing and eating animals is natural."
No, but the fact that it naturally happens in nature does.
"Even if both are, that isn't in and of itself a valid justification for that behaviour."
You haven't given valid justification for why it's not justified.