yoyawn is ignorant who copies other vegans thoughts..cuz his brain has no logik..Your narrative awfully reminds me of those of other eager activists. Regardless of what it is, that one thing you preach just happens to be a solution to just about any issue we face. Bad education, economy etc? No worries, just need more women empowerment is but one example that came from the late Hitchens. Surely women empowerment is a very important issue (one we are actually supposed to fix unlike veganism) but to suggest that on its back rests everything else is silly and simplistic if not, as you'd say, childish. Combined with the holier than thou tone it should be easy to figure out why people don't give vegans much time of day.
Not saying you are wrong on these things but the way you're going about it isn't a very good one.
As for the topic, for someone who claims to love nature you're awfully against all the brutal and violent things that are essentially apart of it. There is nothing unnatural about slaughtering animals nor is there anything innocent or poor about them. You're making a moral case here that is based on a perceived intrinsic value of every animal's life. Ethics has nothing to do with nature beyond mere pragmatism. If the lions could they wouls exterminate any other species they come accross and we've had a lot of cases where if a carnivore loses his natural predator it goes on to damage the rest of the population since there is little to control it.
Ethics in pure naturalism do not have much persuasive force as far as actual moral obligations go. It is merely useful fictions we use to organize our lives in a manner most pleasant to us. Applying our rules to animals as if they are relevant to our artificial discussion is silly.
It is only if you introduce a supernatural component like a moral realm, platonic objects or some divine entity that you get anything concrete when it comes to moral duties. This however is not something you should expect just everyone to agree on.