According to the food chains, it's very normal for human to consume meats (animals) and vegetables (plants) since we were born as Omnivora (we eat all). Carnivora is destined to eat meat only, while Herbivora is being veggie.
Plants they have no choice except being eaten by others, but animal, their survival skill is higher, meaning they can eat the other to survive. I mean 'EAT TO SURVIVE' not eat for 'PLEASURE'. I started to figure out that we, human, sometimes start to get out of line of the food chain. We, sometimes, start to consume the meat not to survive, but sometimes we kill those animal for our own pleasure. For example, shark, if shark attacked human is because it sensed that we will hurt them, another thing is certainly because they are hungry. So then, people started to portrait shark as a vilain (except Leny at Shark Tales lol that one is veggie shark). How about the asian tradition of eating the shark fin soup? Don't they, those asian, also a vilian? They killed the shark just for its fins, and they eat the shark not to survive but just for the 'gastronomic reason'.
Another example is the fox aka renard aka PYONG. How cute that animal can be, and people killing it, not to eat the meat, but to use it fur to make a superb coat. Just because sometimes they stole the chicken from the neighbourhood then we have enough reason to kill it and take its fur for your...again...PLEASURE. Will we die without the fur coat? No. Will the fox die if it does not eat the neighbourhood chicken? Yes, it will starve and please check back the first paragraph of this page, the food chain said that fox, as a carnivore, should eat meat in order to survive. Then, it should be OK for the fox to eat the neighbourhood chicken in order to survive, besides, it's the fault of that chicken owner for not giving enough protection to its chickens. But in the sake of the 'haute couture' people starts to portait fox as a bad character,thanks to the Little Red Hood story.
The last example I will put today is about the conserved animal collector. They spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to buy their favorite collections from the illegal hunter - elephants trunk, tiger, etc. Suddenly I remember to a movie I saw when I was 10, BENJI, the saddest part of that movie is when a hunter killed a cougar in front its babies. I wonder, when those collector 'PAID' the hunter to killed those animals, have they ever think about the family of the animal they killed and conserved for their collection? Imagine if it's the opposite, one of their family member got killed by either elephant or tiger just to be a toy for the family of tiger or elephant, how would they feel? Why we are so egoist just thinking for ourselves and thinks that animals has no feeling and it's the destiny of the animal being killed just to fill our living room. TOTALLY WRONG. ANIMAL IS JUST LIKE US, IT HAS FEELING JUST LIKE YOU AND ME, IT WILL FEEL SAD WHEN IT LOST ITS FAMILY MEMBER. IF YOU DON'T WANT ANIMAL HURTS YOU, PLEASE DON'T HURT IT FIRST.
If the animal hurts us, that means it is a vilain, and, we said, we are allowed to hurt animal because it's for self-defence. Yeah right, we can have a right to self-defense , but animal can not...I wonder...who is the real vilain then?
