Although I disagree with the GP, neither of your arguments are fully thought through. > Plants feel distress too, we are just happily ignorant of it; not too d

Although I disagree with the GP, neither of your arguments are fully thought through. > Plants feel distress too, we are just happily ignorant of it; not too different from people who are happily ignorant of the fact that meat doesn't just appear in the grocery store. Yet meat introduces an additional, unnecessary layer of suffering while also increasing the amount of plant suffering (you need far more than 1kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat). If everyone ate only plants, the amount of plant suffering would decrease. Unless you go to the absolute and define any amount of suffering as fully equal, this argument is not a defense for meat production. > While I cannot encourage it, ceasing to live and reproduce is the best way to reduce the suffering you cause to other life forms to sustain yourself, and reduce your resource burden on the planet, and if that's what you value, not doing so would be defined as hypocritical. Again, you're taking the absolutist route that reducing the suffering of animals isn't worth anything unless it fully eliminates suffering. Incremental improvements are worth it, because they still reduce suffering. This is the "you want to improve society, yet you take part in it, how curious" argument in disguise - and it's pretty disgusting to apply it here.