And yes, there are plenty of very arguable inconsistencies (eg: eating pigs and cows is okay, eating horses is not) in how people look at animal consumption, but I don't particularly think that invalidates ethical concerns over whaling.
(edited for missing words)
Its not consumed in same amounts as beef for sure, but its not shunned by most. And yes there is no logical reason to eat beef (especially calves if we consider the cuteness factor) but not horses, horse meat is even healtier.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
It doesn't make the horses example any less of an example of an inconsistency.
Edit: not only that but the whole point of me bringing up inconsistencies was to say that just because they exist doesn't mean people can't have ethical concerns about whaling (or other kinds of animal hunting / farming).
Your culture thinks eating horse is bad, other cultures it’s fine, but beef or pork is bad.
Even dog and cat are quite common in many countries.
It does not have to be a universal truth.
This is the situation in the UK. Some people trace it back to chivalry, where horses were very expensive and mostly owned by the nobility. But I don't know if that is the real reason.
Although it turned out that British people have been eating plenty of horse. They just didn't know it:
https://www.ouest-france.fr/economie/agroalimentaire/la-vian... and other articles appear to agree with me.
That doesn't necessarily make every ethical boundary they try to have "virtue signaling".