Just to add a few thoughts to this for those who believe in animal welfare:
If you think it's too hard or impractical, assuming you live in a developed country it's almost certainly quite feasible and can be very cheap.
If you think it's too radical, it probably shouldn't seem any different than any of the other moral conundrums we abstain from. Is it radical to not kill, assault, or rob people?
Of course, the context of social acceptance matters, but to illustrate why this (in my opinion) isn't always appropriate, something more comparable: would you consider it radical to not enslave people if you lived in the US during the era of slavery and had the choice to do so but thought it morally wrong?
I've tried to eat at least more vegan and found it quite difficult. I can put some chicken, refried beans, cheese, and a tortilla in the microwave and have a satisfying, high calorie meal in five minutes. I haven't found a vegan equivalent yet.
It isn't satisfying without the chicken? The 'high calorie' aspect won't change too much... There are quite a few fake-meat takes on chicken out there, I don't miss meat so I tend to avoid them, but they exist.
I am vegetarian - I find it a nice balance between the two. In your example, drop the chicken, add some salsa and another kind of bean (whole black?). For extra fun, replace the chicken prep with mushrooms or tofu.
Go eat how you think you should eat. Maybe that includes insects. Maybe that includes steak once a month. Maybe it includes eggs but not milk. Make up your own mind and don't feel limited by the tiny number of established labels. They each come with their own complicated caveats and connotations. And they each demand, by virtue of their established labels, strict adherence to someone else's ideology.
I believe animal cruelty is wrong and I respect people who commit to vegeterianism/veganism, but I’ll keep eating meat until it’s economically unviable.
From which angle? I can't cite figures off the top of my head, but my understanding is that it's well established that eating meat is economically unviable in numerous ways.
Nobody could argue that factory-farmed chicken and pork isn't evil, but there are ways to eat meat without cruelty. Steers raised for meat are not miserable, nor are deer I (try) to shoot every winter.
If you think it's too hard or impractical, assuming you live in a developed country it's almost certainly quite feasible and can be very cheap.
If you think it's too radical, it probably shouldn't seem any different than any of the other moral conundrums we abstain from. Is it radical to not kill, assault, or rob people?
Of course, the context of social acceptance matters, but to illustrate why this (in my opinion) isn't always appropriate, something more comparable: would you consider it radical to not enslave people if you lived in the US during the era of slavery and had the choice to do so but thought it morally wrong?