Why not ?

We can observe similar physiological and behavioral changes in animals and humans when exposed to physical harm. We don't need to assign human characteristics to animals in order to recognise their sentience and ability to suffer.

The idea that killing animals for food in our current environment is immoral is the only logical conclusion of two main things, the pretty widely held belief that needlessly hurting animals is immoral (I hope you don't think it's morally acceptable to go around kicking dogs or what not), and that we have a moral responsibility to each other and future generations not to destroy our environment.

To go back to your initial statement, I'd say your stance is far more illogical and relies on willful ignorance of dire environmental phenomenons and a lack of empathy and critical thinking.

Did you notice how you made a bunch of disjointed, half backed statements without actually engaging or refuting any of my arguments or pointing flaws in my logic ? It's almost like you hold a dogmatic certainty of your morals, and aren't willing to re-examine the validity of your ideology. Sounds familiar ?