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.
(There's also the land use and emissions angle. Arguably meat consumption causes harm to all humans and beyond.)
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.
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?
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.
Kind of like if someone has a poorly maintained house in your neighborhood, it impacts the value of your house.