„I won’t let my right to meat be taken away!“ He says, arms crossed over his chest and snorting with anger, as if I had ever intended to take anything from him. All I did, and I frankly confess, was to explain to him the disadvantages of a lifestyle that consumed animal products.
„I will not let my right to meat be taken away!“ Is the reply, a second time, now clarified by the addition, „Certainly not from you fascist vegans. You really think you’ve eaten wisdom with a spoon and now you want to stuff it into everyone. But it doesn’t work for me.” It is clear to me that there is nothing to be done. I look at him and I can’t help but think of a small child who has withdrawn into his pout and doesn’t want to listen, let alone understand.
„After all, I don’t tell you what to do,“ he adds, „you can eat your food from me, but I eat what I want. Everyone should live the way they want and respect the others.” He turns and walks. Would it have made sense to say something, anything that would have arrived?

„My right to meat,“ he said, and of course everyone in our society has the right to eat meat. The only question is, do I have to do everything I have a right to, or isn’t it sometimes more sensible not to do something when I have a right to? Even if the legislature does not object? We have learned that what is not expressly prohibited is allowed. More than that, which is not expressly forbidden, is also morally integrity, in order to forget that the legislature does not care about morality, least of all about life rights, but only to reflect the mood of the population. We have a classic cat-biting situation. The legislator adapts to the reality of life, while the recipient of the law adapts his or her reality to the laws. If the legislator says that animals are things, then we agree, because after all, he has to know. But otherwise we don’t let anything be said. It doesn’t need it either. We always do everything that everyone else does. Eating meat, for example. Because the legislature has nothing against it. That is why we have a right to it. After all, everyone should live the way they want. Naturally. Everyone should have the opportunity to realize his / her life plan. Very nice sentence, just that the people who prefer to use it in their mouths have this right approx. Discuss 60,000,000,000 so-called farm animals that live in stables for a short life under the most adverse conditions, against which the legislature has no objection, if only because otherwise it would prevent people from being supplied with the cheapest meat, which in turn would benefit the economy which the legislature also supports. My right to meat also means that everyone has the right to eat sick and to access a health system that is co-financed by those who pay attention to healthy eating. In addition, all of our planet is destroyed by the way. Even there is no law against it.

However, there is also no legal regulation that prohibits you from thinking yourself. And once you realize that the destruction of nature, biodiversity, the ocean, the soil, our health is linked to the fact that we consume animal products, it’s no longer a question of whether we have the right to eat meat, but whether we have the right to destroy the planet and the future of our children. Of course, we have the right because there is no law in the world that prohibits this, but it does not mean that we have to exercise this right. On the contrary, we all have the right to do our part to save this world, to let everyone live the way they want to live, i.e. to realize their life plan without destroying anyone. But as long as most people just act and defend it loudly, what everyone does, run in the herd and expect social positive reinforcement, the right to destroy the world will be exercised.