[mamon]

I am against animal cruelty, except I don't consider killing animals for meat to be cruelty, it's just an animal fulfilling their life purpose. That's how virtually all wild animals die, by becoming a meal for some predator, so killing them by humans is no different.

Then again, if someone would do some unnecessary torture on said animal, starving it, beating it up, then of course I would consider that cruelty and demanded punishment for that.

[bootlooped]

Declaring another living thing to have a life purpose that involves a harm to them and a benefit to you is probably not that defensible, at least not if you want to be objective about it.

You've said "if someone would do some unnecessary torture on said animal"; since a person can be vegetarian or vegan, isn't it a reasonable argument to say that any pain inflicted on food animals is unnecessary?

[Vinnl]

When is torture unnecessary? For example, factory farmed chickens have their beaks cut off (and there are nerves in there - they're not like nails or hair). This allows you to keep more in a small space, because even those the stress causes them to start pecking at each other, they can't damage each other too much. And if you can keep more in a small space, they are cheaper, and we can eat more eggs.

Thus, it benefits us in some way, but we would not suffer greatly if we had fewer/somewhat more expensive eggs. Is it then necessary?