It’s a difference between thinking of dogs as a species and dogs as individuals. I wouldn’t want “my” dog on the barbie, but generally don’t have a problem with

It’s a difference between thinking of dogs as a species and dogs as individuals. I wouldn’t want “my” dog on the barbie, but generally don’t have a problem with the idea of “dogs” on the barbie if we didn’t have better choices (I/we do). There’s also a hierarchy of value: I love you and I love my dog. I you were starving, I’d feed you my dog. If my dog were starving, it’s curtains for the dog. It also improves understanding to differentiate between the act of killing “an” animal for food, and the specialization in a society to do that at scale. Criticizing the excesses of esp. modern industrialization need not mandate rejection of using animals for food in principle. Those are two separate issues to my way of thinking. Raising and killing an animal for food is not in itself cruel unless the methods to do so are such - in other words it need not be done cruelly. The opinion that raising and killing animals at an industrial scale crosses the line seems then a question of degree (what would it take to make industrial scale less cruel?). This is of course balanced with what our tribe needs to thrive efficiently. We allow a lot of cruelty for our convenience - just look at how your iPhone or Nikes are made (and food has to be a whole lot more affordable than iPhones). Doing anything at industrial scale exploits resources (human or otherwise). Fighting for better conditions in industry doesn’t require abstention from eating meat unless perhaps that’s your only way to get meat. I say perhaps because there’s also this idea of fixing the truck while we’re driving it - complete abolition of an industry is not a necessary step (or arguably a wise one) to improve it. If you just broadly reject the idea of eating meat because it represents the death of another life form to sustain your own existence, that’s a tough corner to be in with any consistency.