Your statement is false.  As just one example, the Tarahumara people of Central America have been largely plant-based for centuries, and that's just one example (and they're renowned for incredible feats of endurance too).

The circle of life?  A call to nature?  Lions also rape, should we aspire to that too?  Most of us can now go down to the grocery store and get whatever plant foods we want from around the world.  I think we can do better than we did when we were struggling to survive in prehistory, or what lions do today for that matter.

As others have said, eating animals means also killing more plants (since humans eat herbivorous animals) than just eating plants directly, so any pro-meat argument about plant welfare is self-defeating.

And your statements about biology are false.  Plant foods contain all the amino acids a body needs.  Animals can't create the amino acids in protein, only plants can do that.  Plants take nitrogen and synthesize amino acids and combine them into proteins.  Your statement is based on the false belief that we need to eat an idealized ratio of amino acids.  We now know that's not true, the body breaks apart proteins and stores the amino acids separately, combining them when necessary into whatever ratio the body needs.  In fact, there's growing evidence that always eating a "complete protein" is bad for the body, and that amino acid imbalances from one meal to the next may actually have a cleansing effect on the body.  Any anti-vegan argument that contains "because protein" is self-defeating.

As for the environment, the United Nations (hardly a vegan mouthpiece) looked at all the information and concluded animal agriculture is devastating for the environment.  Hell, the meat industry has started acknowledging it: arguments are now sometimes made that factory farms are better for the environment than small scale animal agriculture because factory farms consume less land, less water, and less feed.  So if you eat meat your choice is the animal agriculture that's worse for the animals, or the animal agriculture that's worse for the environment.  It's a game that you can only win by not playing.

The Tarahumara subsist on a diet that is largely fruits and vegetables they do indeed eat meat; mostly small animals and fish, which makes up about 5% of their diet (which I've argued for years is the sweet spot that human digestive systems thrive at). Their renowned feats of endurance are also called "persistence hunting", which they use to hunt deer.

I like how you completely ignored the comparison to your rape analogy of doing the same with crops on a mass scale, did that make you feel bad too?, aww, you ignore that whenever someone brings it up in the thread I've noticed, so clearly you don't want to discuss things like the mass forced production, forced breeding, forced growing and forced harvesting of all crops, worldwide, and the environmental impact that has on the world in running those agricultural machines, the long process of washing, drying, sorting and packaging, then the impact of trucks delivering said product around the world to stores, or the environmental impact of having animals habitats destroyed to make way for vast crop fields.... yet you act like this is an exclusive impact only done by animal agriculture, which is bullshit. 

All the environmental impacts, (to both forests, and animal habitats) occur whether it be a field for animals to graze in, or a field for crops to grow.

And the total land used worldwide used for grazing stands at 3 billion hectares, the total land used worldwide for crop production stands at 1.4 billion hectares, and while you might jump the gun and say "ha, see, it uses twice as much land as crop production!", you need to keep in mind that 1.2-1.4 billion hectares of that grazing land are in countries where mass crop production isn't possible (the largest of which being africa), and thus the animals are left to roam vast swathes of land in order to forrage for food themselves, with that in mind the land use globally for animal agriculture and crop production is very similar, and yet, if you got your wish and the whole world turned vegan, do you think the current land use for crop production would sustain the demand?, or would that land once used for animal agriculture end up used for crop fields too (yes, it would). in which case, even if every single person on this planet turned vegan, not only would it not effect how much land was used for agriculture in general, but the amount of land used for agriculture would actually increase to accomodate the demand, creating an even more detrimental impact on both the environment and wildlife.

I know what goes on in meat production, i've seen the battery hens, I've seen the abuse some facilities do (chainsaw to a pig, etc), and yet, I still eat meat, I still visit my local farm and buy freshly killed chickens, pluck them myself, cook them, eat them, still enjoy beef, lamb, chicken, fish, buffalo, the works, should I feel bad that some animals aren't treated humanely?, should I stop eating meat because bad things happen in the world?, no not at all, as you yourself pointed out in the last paragraph, humanity is guilty of at times doing equally messed up stuff to itself, and there is no end in sight to that either.

And no, I wasn't pointing out that animal agriculture rape and murder seems like an excessive comparison, you're straw-manning, I was pointing out that making the jump from that to comparing it to the actions of a rapist or serial murder, thus implying that meat eaters are comparable to said rapist and murderers, was fucked up.

So you can keep your "red pill" (ohh, you're SO WOKE!!), and all the other pills you guzzle down, and I'll keep eating meat.

Just a quick side note: buying into vegan spins and propaganda isn't being "woke", because most people are well aware of the pros and cons of being a vegan (with the exception of extreme cases on both sides, though there seems to be more extreme cases in vegans).

Being "woke" is more like how feminism harassed the benefactor of a Men's Shelter until he closed it in bankruptcy (they ran a smear campaign that ruined his credibility and public image) and finally killed himself (another statistic feminists would rather sweep under the rug is actually male suicide, outnumbering female suicide 5 to 1).

Good news. I do not eat meat or egg products. My consumption of milk based product is probably reduced considerably as well but it is little difficult to go vegan.

Indeed, was used jokingly/mockingly in response to the use of "red pill" to describe knowing about the negatives of meat production.

More dismissive. I say "It's good that people have the option to be vegan more than they did years ago" and you basically said "enjoy your heart disease," lol. And the five posts in a row having to reply to every single person is getting old. Do you not know how to consolidate?

This is why I argue vegans are healthier in most statistics. Not because they don't eat animal biproducts, but because they spend every waking moment analyzing their food. To be a vegan takes commitment- the same kind of commitment it takes to be an athlete. I would argue that anyone who watches what they eat as much as a vegan would be just as healthy, if not moreso thanks to all that delicious B12 that they don't have to eat actual dirt to get.

Absolutely. Their fuel is basically veggies, oats, grains, fruits, dry fruits. I have huge respect for them and how they have developed just taste. They are basically some sort of nutritionist as well. Most if not all barely eat processed, fast food or any tastemaker that normal person like me love to eat lol.