Nature is not a source of morality. The ONLY people who use nature as their morality are those trying to justify how they victimize others.

Dude, really? Name literally any other instance where people do this. Not only are there absolutely zero (which is what I was stating in my response above, if you read it) but as much as you (and I, coincidentally) love animals, it's ridiculous to consider them "others." Yes, I completely agree that the meat industry right now is so beyond utterly fucked that it's incomprehensible, but to put any animal on the same level as a human being is outright silly. I realize that I'm in the completely wrong sub for this, but it's just common sense.

If you think it's wrong of someone to beat a dog, it's wrong of you to have horrifying torture done to other animals.

If you read my other posts, you'd realize that I fucking agree with you that torturing animals is completely wrong but apparently you can't see that from up there on your high horse. I do, however, disagree insofar as that there is a humane way to kill animals and it has been done for literally millions of years.

Your definition of morality is clearly skewed if you think that someone in a third world country who has no other source of nutrition because the soil is barren should die instead of slaughtering their goat. I'm guessing you'd say that "that's different," but it isn't. You don't get to pick and choose your morals based on the situation. If nobody should kill animals, ever, like you say, then we should just let those people die off because, silly them, they live in a place where it rains once every ten years and have literally zero means to get away from it. If they are allowed to kill animals, then I should be too.