People hold themselves to different standards than the general population all the time.

Just because I cycle to work and don't own a car for environmental reasons, doesn't mean I think car owners are assholes - I have owned a car in the past, may do again in the future, sometimes get taxis and lifts, and have plenty of friends and family members with cars.

Because he respects others people's decisions and don't want to force his/her ideas in them.

That's not what he said though. He said he didn't care. That's different from respecting a decision. You can respect and still vehemently disagree.

I think that "not caring about other people actions" should be the standard way of thinking if you think their actions doesn't cause harm to other humans. That's what I get from that text.

Why is the only concern that no harm is done to humans? What about animals? Are we not animals ourselves?

But he already said he had a problem with inhumanely produced meat, in other words, actions that cause grave harm to animals. Why would you have that standard at all if you don't care if it's met?

(There's also the land use and emissions angle. Arguably meat consumption causes harm to all humans and beyond.)

> he already said he had a problem with inhumanely produced meat

Well, technically they said that they don't "like to eat inhumanly raised animal products".

But I guess the general argument is whether their stance is inherently consistent.

...which is pointless to deconstruct without further input from the parent.

For me, it’s a “chose your battles” sort of thing. I don’t seek confrontation nor even diminishing others. Life is too, too short. I further hope that my nonviolence will lead others to treat me nonviolently.

But is the parent really needed here? This discussion seems to have become "how dare you take a stance in this issue that we cannot fully understand"?

How about, while hungry they are sickened by the cruelty involved in producing food, but while full, they simply have other, more important things on their mind?

I don't care that much about animals, as far as their pain or feelings.

If we slaughter ants and fruit flies while not caring for their rights, what is that different from a cow or dog?

I know this is an unpopular position, but I don't see the logic in animal rights.

Now, when we're talking about maintaining ecosystems, I'm all for it. What's happening to bees is bad for humans.

But creating cattle just to slaughter and eat it, that's just part of our nature. Like a lion slaughters a gazelle. We just evolved to have the tools to breed them...

Maybe cattle breeding is inefficient and pollutes the planet. That's also bad,but it's the best way we've found yet to feed billions of people and keep affordable food prices.

I am sure almost every action could indirectly be related to human suffering of some sort. Using a phone for example and there is a good chance that it will have cobalt mined by children in Congo.

Sure. But that's a very weak excuse if it's one at all. I sometimes jaywalk, does this justify me mudering someone? I mean I can't be perfect right so why even try?

One could make the argument that treating animals poorly lowers the value of life.

Kind of like if someone has a poorly maintained house in your neighborhood, it impacts the value of your house.

For me (not about meat but other things) it's selfishness and ego. I care about me, I care about the picture of myself I have in my head and who I think I am. My self-image and the kind of person I want to be (and want to pretend I am) are important enough to me that there are some things I do (or not). Everyone else? Looks like they have different delusions, fantasies and aspirations about who they are and who they want to be.

Cause he’s “one of those weird people” that do so.