I want to second the clarifications by adrianN and shawnz -- there is a difference between not actively caring about suffering, and not even seeing the point in anyone caring about it.
It seems my "I in fact believe you should see a psychologist" worked exactly as well rootusrootus implied it would. Many seem to think I want to label the previous poster as a psychopath, and do so in hatred. That was not my intention. I admit, I fail at communication, regularly, even more so the more I try to refrain from it.
Although suggested otherwise, my message did *not* contain a diagnosis. Given this extremely limited context, I doubt anyone could give a proper remote diagnosis. And I especially did not attach a psychopathy label to the previous poster. I personally know of at least three mental/neurological atypical (and not voluntarily chosen) states that cause people to (partially) adopt nihilism, and I'm sure mental health professionals have seen quite a few more.
When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.
So the main reason to exploit animal is because the other human hate it and that other human could harm you. I see so it has nothing to do with the animal suffering itself.
Could it be that reduction of _observable_ suffering is what many people are actually concerned about, not the underlying suffering as such?
It's OK to buy a burger - just as long as you don't have to watch how it's made.
It's OK to buy a $5 imported shirt - as long as you don't have to observe the conditions under which it was produced.