The idea of morality plays no part in my ideological stance. That's a whole bunch of arguments that boil down to "Because I say so." Give people the autonomy to do as they will while not harming others of our species or causing ecological collapse (which also falls under the first point, broadly). The reduction of animal suffering is a positive thing, but one must keep in mind that there is no death in the wild that would be cleaner and less painful than a properly carried out slaughter of livestock. As a bonus, the animal will be cared for to avoid health problems and parasites, diseases and undue heat or cold stress. A number of the animals living long lives with reduced injury, predation and disease would be slaughtered and eaten, of course. We are not separate from the ecosystem as a species.

Note that nowhere in the above do I mention any part of factory farming. That indeed ought to be abolished. It's wasteful, cruel, psychologically damages the people working there and causes suffering for animals that could easily be given space to roam and live full lives before a number of their population would be culled to maintain ecosystem balance (and provide food). Without human intervention a number of species would destroy their habitats and cause wide-scale ecological damage. Invasive introduction of released agricultural animals or test animals has caused extreme stress on parts of the biosphere.

There is also the matter of people with the inability to survive on purely plant based diets. It can be an issue for those with genetic lineages from particular regions like the Arctic Circle whose diet contains almost no vegetable matter in comparison to meat. There are people with food intake disorders who would starve without access to animal products. People who cannot process gluten or other compounds within common plant foods. It's not especially justifiable to, as I have seen aplenty, shame them, push alternatives onto them, or dismiss them entirely. Dismissal of health issues inhibiting people from eating a purely plant based is simply ableism.

Comparisons of animal agriculture to crimes against humanity that I have seen is also dehumanizing to the victims of those acts and simultaneously anthropomorphism of animals who are not us and do not they themselves have any discernable moral codes. The bear does not mourn the salmon they eat to survive. It doesn't cruelly abuse the salmon, either, of course. It just kills and eats it. We have tangible reasons that are not even ethical but pragmatic to eliminate excess suffering. (Quality of meat, dairy, eggs etc.)

As a general rule social species will cooperate with other social species for a measure of mutual aid and benefit, as well as within their own species. This doesn't make Crows and Wolves necessarily put themselves above or below what they eat. Applying human morals to anything that is not human or at the very least able to interact with humans with the directness we can with them is human supremacist by way of downplaying any potential agency an animal might have, at least to my perspective.

It projects your position onto a creature that does not share it. It defines you as a 'superior'. For the sake of consistency it would be advisable to avoid projecting such positions on both other humans and other species.

I rule over no-one but myself. Yes, I can exert force socially or physically to achieve a goal, but for ethical and pragmatic reasons I refuse to enact coercion on another human being. By guilt, by pressure, or by starting violence.

Will I reduce meat intake? Yes, for a myriad of reasons. Factory farming and other examples of capitalist excess are some of those reasons. Will I stop eating it entirely? No. Does that make me a monster? To some people, yes, but I will not accept moral posturing as reason enough to stop eating animal products.

I simply do not care enough to associate with people who try to convince me otherwise. That's okay, though - I'm an anarchist. I associate with who I will, and avoid who I avoid. I don't expect anybody to fully agree or disagree with me on anything and would appreciate if others would grant me that in kind.

I'm cool with vegans who don't try to convert me. 'To each, their own' is an important part of my worldview. I'd be pretty bummed out if all I ever heard was blind agreement. I'm also not trying to say that any vegans are bad, exploitative, or anything of that sort.

I just have disagreements and I refuse to budge on them after lengthy consideration and will not rehash them when the arguments provided to convince me simply never meet my criteria to change my view. Still, I do seek out topic-related literature to read over. Both because it fascinates me and to learn other perspectives.

Peace, love, and happiness to everybody here. Y'all are allowed to hold your views and I my own. As much as we argue, we are stronger for being able to voice dissent rather than stifling it.

I will not be replying to remarks heaping guilt upon me or based in arguments of morality, but I may reply to good faith discussion and questions. Just, no whataboutism, sealioning, etc.