think fast

Justify killing animals for nutrition when...

1. you don't have to (beans/rice, eggs, dairy, gluten, etc. provide enough protein),
2. you accept Darwinism and the conclusion that humans aren't ``special'' aside from their abilities (and the corollary that ability doesn't determine one's right to live), and
3. you hold empathy as a reasonable virtue

>>8
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dolphin-intelligence-explained.htm
Who the fuck eats dolphin.

So retards (IQs the same as big mammals) don't deserve to live?
IQ doesn't measure self-awareness.

Even so, many animals are intelligent: [links]
I really only eat chicken and fish nowadays.  If you want to prove to me that chicken are geniouses, please go ahead.  Also if someone came up to me with an acceptably-priced (soy-based?) meat simulation I would totally go for it and I would only eat real meat every (say) two weeks to prevent vitamin B12 deficiency.

>>9
You could use that to justify anything. Rape? Primal urges for reproduction. Murder? Competition for territory and mates.
Down the slippery slope, wheeee.  The reason why those things are particularly bad is because they are perpetrated against an intelligent self-aware species (which therefore has all the rights associated with that).

Controlling nature is not a bad thing to do, and anyone making such an argument (a naturalistic fallacy) is acting hypocritically unless they're Amish.
You mena you want to control what other people eat.