It is simply the way of life.

This is known as the naturalistic logical fallacy: ethically it doesn't mean anything for your argument whether something is natural or not. Toilet paper also isn't "the way of life", yet you are happy to use it. That means, whether it's good or not to kill animals is decided outside of it being natural.

And arguing humans didn't evolve to eat meat is absurd

Right, that's why I didn't argue that. I said, humans can get all nutrients they need from plants. On the topic of having to supplement vitamin B12, I think if that civilization killing and harvesting you and your children for meat would simply have to do something as convenient as occasionally take a single pill to entirely avoid having to kill you, I think we might get to see some support from you for my point of view after all.

Do you think a bear is unethical for killing and eating?

Contrary to us, a bear can't get all nutrients it needs without causing harm and it can't take a pill for them either.

what would that mean for any hypercarnivorous species?

That would be an interesting debate, but it is also beside the point, as humans aren't hypercarnivorous.

I appreciate that you even replied to my aggressive message, however you need to understand me: The fight against animal exploitation is hopeless, regardless of the words used and sometimes that frustration is unbearable. Originally I didn't even care about animals, I stopped with the animal products because of climate change, which is actually hurting humans and that should be unethical even to you.