I recognize that you may be stepping back from this discussion, but I think it's important to address these inconsistencies in your earlier reasoning: Your log

I recognize that you may be stepping back from this discussion, but I think it's important to address these inconsistencies in your earlier reasoning: Your logic is inconsistent on multiple levels. You won't eat fish because "it was alive" but accept eggs from an industry that kills hundreds of millions of male chicks. You claim honey and milk are fine as "byproducts," but this ignores how dairy cows must be forcibly impregnated, separated from their calves, and killed when production drops, while honey is literally the bees' food that we take, often killing many in the process. These aren't benign side effects - they're fundamental to how these industries operate. You claim to only support "ethical" animal products while acknowledging industrial meat production is inhumane, yet fail to recognize that "ethical" animal agriculture is simply not scalable to feed the global population. These distinctions you're making (McD's vs butcher, etc.) are arbitrary moral lines that serve more to make you feel better about your choices than to address the fundamental ethical issues. After sharing your perspective on these broader ethical concerns, falling back to "it works for me and my family" isn't a meaningful response to systemic issues affecting billions of beings.