Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

So it isn't about life, liberty, or a reasonable pursuit of it's own needs (carrots get passing marks on all three metrics), it's an issue of whether or not they know they have it. That sentience is determined by consciousness or the ability to suffer does not alter the scenario one bit. Those things are determined by species. We do not see sentient memebers of species which are otherwise not sentient (no sentient carrots). That quality is a product of biology. Speciesism isn't all that bad is it?

Also, it does taste so good. That is honestly all that I require. Its a neutral issue for me in the same way that it is a neutral issue for a wolf, a snake, a spider, or an omnivorous primate....
(I've stuck with this only for interesting ancillary points about farming, what it means to be sentient, etc. I don't think that your invocation of ethics or morality as a justification for vegetarianism is as solid as you seem to think it is. If someone were to ask me why I eat meat, or how I justify it, it's simple. I am an omnivore. You invoke sentience, friendly or hostile definitions, speciesism, innate rights, unnecessary suffering. That's a long way to go don't you think? It would be simpler and easier to justify such a stance if you could claim to be herbivorous, but that wouldn't be entirely true, would it? More of an omnivore playing herbivore, and only in a specific area, still fully availing yourself of the bounty of dead animals in other ways.)

That last piece is an is-ought gap fallacy. Simply because something is the way it is doesn't mean that it ought to be that way. A carnivore is not a vegetarian. A herbivore is not a meat eater. An omnivore can eat both meat and plants. Descriptive, not ethically binding. It's not as though humans are meant to eat meat. They just happened to evolve with that capacity due their environment. This is the argument based on the "natural order" and I don't find it particularly convincing.

It's also not specifically that I'm overwhelmingly convinced of the truth of my own arguments it's a combination of arguments for meat eating making no sense to me and the role that ethical consideration of animals plays in my larger ethical theory. It's not simply dietary preference and that is why it is inherently more complex than your tastes would seem to prefer.