I think we have reached a point in where we are just disagreeing about points of views, but not on something objective.

With the first two points, I have nothing to disagree with.I can actually relate to you in one point or another.As for the last point, what I said, and every argument should be about really, is the general population of said professions.There are the shitty hunters that hunt illegaly and kill endangered animals, ones that kill just for the kill and leave the body there.Those should be arrested and deserves no respect.The same goes for the other end in the prostitute profession.There are the ones that, while I still dont think nicely of them, are the high end prostitutes, which lives really well, the costumers are all "gentlemans" and will never be in any real danger as the ones I gave a example of.But those are the exceptions, or rather the minorities.I still have to see or read that many of the prostitutes are rich or have real good lifes, or that the world is infested with illegal hunters that have decimated countless species.There will always be exception for any situation, and these are the outliners, not the common.

As for taking pleasure in what they do, why shouldnt they?I mean, you dont need to like that, but its what makes them so good at what they do. And that dosent mean they willbe, or are, bad people. Imagine if soldiers(as in soldiers that go to wars or work in the army) didnt like what they did. US would have a shitty army then. Being good at killing people, for as sad as this is, is what makes them good soldiers, and that what makes them good protectors, which is one necessary evil for any society. And when you are good at something, it usually means you enjoy it.And yet, you dont see every single soldier that comes back from war going on a killing spree, do you?(outside of exceptions, of course) They are usually good people, with families.Im sure there are more professions out there that could be similar to this situation we are discussing about, but I think the soldier one is good enough.

As for that last line, apples and oranges.Its a matter of seeing things differently I guess.

And with this comment, I once again repeat:

My god, it feels like Im talking to a brick wall.

I just answered your question and yet you go on to say a memory problem?Please.It seems that you are the one who has reading problems.Here it is my quote from the last post:

°And if you mean the part where I said  people were quick to call the hunter a monster and a criminal and so on, but then I went on to point out that by eating meat, fish or other types of vegetables and foods, you are incentivizing other hunters to keep on hunting( and thus keep on doing what you consider heinous but you dont want to stop eating that so delicious meat), and thus keep those same monsters doing what they do, I meant hunters in general, not this one that was hunting elephants, that I was corrected on being in danger of extintion.My point was to all hunters, that do this legally, not the illegal part of that profession."

And as it seems that you are too lazy to look up proof about what I said about plant life, here it is to ease things up for ya:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

Before you say anything, vegetable comes from plants, and to produce vegetables, you need to open space, which means taking down fields filled with plant life(actually agriculture brings about the destruction of many wooded areas and similar terrains, one of such victims is the Amazonia rain forest,and is a very real threat to the planet, which only happens because we humans consume alot of vegetables and thus the market react to that.But thats a discussion for another day).With that out of the way...

So what you are saying is, just because plants cant scream, cry, most of the time cant fight back, they are inferior to other types of life and its ok to destroy?So you are ok with people who take down trees and dont use the wood, but are not ok with killing animals?Thats what you are saying?Because that would make you a monster, since you are ok with people destrying the ecosystem.See where I am getting?

I called you a simpleton, not insulted you.And keeps that fake laugh to yourself, you are making yourself look like a fool in the process. About the red meat part, of course anything in excess can be harmful.To be quite honest, alot of things nowadays can cause cancer, even vegetables.If you dont believe me, just read this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-100825/Eating-vegetables-seriously-damage-health.html

And at the same time, red meat is extremely beneficial for us to consume(in moderation, obviously):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3300942/Why-red-meat-good-health-days-dire-cancer-warnings-comfort-expert-analysis.html

It is rich in nutrients, energy, and the brain gets its nutrients from there.

You know what else can cause cancer?Salmon, canned tomato, hydrogenated oils(which is basicalle vegetable oil, you know the oil that we use basically in everything), Diet foods in general, and so on.See for yourself.Oh and mind you, this list only contain some of the foods that can cause cancer.Pretty sure there are more out there.

http://naturalon.com/10-of-the-most-cancer-causing-foods/13/

So yeah, anything excessive is bad.And I mean, anything.Even water, drinking it at absurd high levels, can kill you(though its unrealistic to happen).That 70 g guideline is just that, guideline.It will vary to person to person, due to the metabolism of him/her, and due to the fact that you dont eat meat every single day.And I mean, if eating more than that was that dangerous, we would probably be dead by now, since we lived off of meat for many centuries.So yeah, in the moment that you said " Oh no, red meat is a big villain, will get you cancer for sure, everyone should stop eating it and be more healthy" is the moment you lost all credibility due to all the evidence I posted above, since you cant do some basic search, and the fact that you just bash at me instead of bringing actual tangible proof to the discussion.

The key word here is:moderation.Nothing is really bad for your health, unless ingested in excess.

This dude claims he doesnt equate killing endangered species with eating vegetables, but then goes on to post a wall of text saying exactly that! LOLZ!

Seriously bruh, there's no other way to misinterpret this:

"I always find it funny when people acusse these guys of being "mass murderers""

"Do you eat vegetable and plants?Then you re also murderer.They are also living beings, and just because they dont scream and cry dosent make them less living.There are more and more researches indicating that plants have councioness, so they are as much alive as any other animal"

It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall, if you dont want to be educated, thats your problem man. Just dont say in public people are hypocrites for criticizing criminals who kill endangered species, because they dont raise their voice for eating, excuse me killing living vegetables LMAO! hahahahahahahahahahah

"if eating more than that was that dangerous, we would probably be dead by now"

Nah, we wouldnt be dead, we would just increase our risk by a certain factor. You're not eating poison. Our ancestors weren't eating meat in the same volume we do today, and they certainly weren't living as long as we do today, avg American consumes +125kg meat a year. 5x as much than what the WHO suggests they should limit to. The excess you love to talk about, is a very small amount, 5x as small than what the avg American consumes. The link you gave talks about contaminated fish, high sugar, high fat, high salt and artiricial food which we knew are bad, the dangers of red meat has only been published 2 years ago.