This is a simplistic child-like logic. Not even sure how to address it.
For example, the argument that killing animals for food is immoral. If that’s true then nature is immoral. Perhaps because humans are uniquely sapient, we can avoid this. But that presumes that humans are uniquely superior to recognize this over all other carnivors.
> But that presumes that humans are uniquely superior to recognize this over all other carnivors [sic].
It doesn't need to involve a value judgment that we are somehow "superior". It just requires recognizing the obvious, that we are indeed uniquely sapient. Furthermore the argument for killing animals is using the flawed appeal to nature, which doesn't work for rape or any other of the countless "natural" activities we overcame with our sapience.
That is just one of the simplest, pragmatic I think, reasons to dispute “all meateating is bad.”
Note, I think we should eat meat in a humane way so actually think this california law is helpful. I just don’t think that all meat eating is bad.
And don't get me started on this law that I have to be clothed.... No other animal is clothed. Maybe humans are the ones who are wrong? Really makes you think.
Is it possible that evolutionary consuming meat gives you an advantage?
If, one day, we are in a position where we can make that choice, then that will be a relevant moral question to decide.