Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.
sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.
If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.
You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.
Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?