<< the difference between hunting and eating meat is that you don't kill the animal yourself. i don't think i could kill something without hating it... and there's not much reason to hate some animal that's never done anything to you >>
In the real world -- the natural world, that is -- it's eat or be eaten. Sure, the deer that you kill has never done anything to you, but it would if its natural food was people. It eats its food (plants) and, in a way, "kills" the plant without any sort of hate. Also, if you don't kill that deer and eat its meat, you would eventually become hungry and then malnourished and then become easy pray for something that DOES eat humans, even if it's just the foxes and vultures that pick over your dead body.
Animals are hundreds of times more effecient at extracting energy from plants than we are. We eat celery and lose energy in the process, because the carbohydrates are so complex that our bodies cannot digest them. Cows and other cud-chewing animals have developed the processes necessary to efficiently extract energy from plants, and we have the capability to fairly efficiently extract energy from animal flesh. The moral? Eating animals = good.
The idea that hatred is a necessary precondition for killing is silly liberal stuff. The only way that you could refuse to kill is if you hated YOURSELF and wanted to see your own extinction. Which many people do nowadays, it seems. I sometimes think about the thousands of generations that fought and struggled and developed through so much hardship to bring us where we are now, only to watch us throw it all away by having no children. It must really take a strong self-hatred to not want to have children.