Ah, the good ole "circle of death" a.k.a appeal to nature fallacy.

Something being natural makes it more sustainable.

We have to feed the animal mass, hence the double impact on environment. Your argument is actually in favor of veganism, not against it.

Depending on how much meat you're producing, you can do it in a manner which isn't that damaging to the environment. Chickens don't require that much food but they produce enough to feed a family, and cows can live off of grass if you don't try and produce too many of them.

To live and be dead at the same time? That sure sounds logical. Veganism is about reducing harm done to animals as much as is practically possible.

Killing ourselves would be a great way to do that, yes. Humanity is the world's single most prolific and destructive invasive species.

Some people choose even closer point than you in how evil they're willing to be. Without going into gory examples, I guess you'd just be content with it? I mean even if it's not illegal doesn't mean it's right, right?

Well yes, obviously, if I was less moralistic then I'd be able to be content with much more evil in this world, however, some evil can be greatly reduced without inconveniencing civilization very much (unlike removing meat from the human diet), so there's no need to be content with it.

Yes, exactly like lions. "When humans eat flesh, we don't actually tear it with our cuspids. Instead, we soften meat with cooking and then pre-tear it with utensils before grinding it down with our flattened molars, which are particularly well-suited for chewing vegetation." Source

This does not disprove my main point that humans evolved to eat meat.

You buying your meat at the store, nicely vacuumed has nothing to do with nature. Despite any lion fantasies.

Yes, that's why I wish to go hunt deer or something. The meat will probably taste better and procurement will be much more fulfilling than your average grocery trip because the thrill of the hunt is what our minds and bodies long for.

This is an example of the laziness I was talking about in the earlier comment.

It is the biological imperative of all living creatures to be as lazy as possible.

Now this is not lazy. It's 4D chess or something. Anyway I've lost the plot already.

The point is to show that your logic on who it is and isn't ok to make fun of are easy to distort.

You could try that at a comedy club. (A place not run by Nazis ofc.)

The reason why you'd be removed from the premises is because the audience doesn't like your joke, which is what I'm proposing we use as the arbiter of comedy here instead of what direction you're punching in. And if you did somehow make a funny joke about Jews, which I've seen examples of, then people will probably laugh at it.

Yes, that's unfortunate. Hope they get the treatment they deserve.

Then why do we still make fun of them? According to your logic, it'd be considered punching down, since non-offending pedophiles objectively do no harm and are a marginalized group. The answer, of course, is because they can be a source of good jokes, and because you don't hear them complaining about it, or anyone complaining on their behalf.

Factory farming has a goal alright. It's to destroy the global ecosystem and bring profit to multi national corporations while doing it.

I don't think corporations care about the first part, and the way they actually get the second part is by feeding people.

In fact, if most of the population went plant based, the soil would be used to grow stuff that could be utilized straight by humans, thus removing the animal from the equation.

We don't need to remove the animal entirely from the equation in order to have a good-enough supply chain.

Also, there would be enough of food to easily feed the whole world population.

There already is, the fact that anyone starves is a failure of logistics, not the fact that we eat meat.