"Jean Clingfilm" wrote

Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
wrong.

Most humans have this ability, but not all know how to apply it. It has been
a human tribal trait for thousands of years to place moral significance on
some ritual or belief and then lay negative attributes on others who do not
share the ritual or belief. The history of the middle-ages gives bloody
testament, it was called The Inquisition.

- This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,

Yes it can, the analytical method can be applied, and the syndrome I
described also can.

and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
consumption is fallacious.

It's not fallacious to deny there is a moral or ethical component to
anything.

I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.

Perhaps inferring moral weakness in others is something from which you
derive a feeling of satisfaction.

Perhaps you would be willing to explain how eating meat, which is lifeless,
can possibly have a moral component.

Perhaps you mean *killing* an animal (in order to eat it's meat) is what has
a moral component.

If so, why do you not equally attack all forms of agriculture and other
processes which involve the systematic killing of animals? Why would you
single out only that killing which results in humans obtaining meat? To say
it another way, why is it wrong to kill a cow for food, but not wrong to
kill the mice which threaten the food supply?

The mother of compassion has fostered a stillborn child.