[logicchains]

>If you choose to ignore your own health that's your deal, but if you make choices that negatively impact the lives of millions I think the ethics are different.

The impact of any individual unit of meat consumption by an individual is incredibly marginal. The standard society generally uses to determine whether an individual has harmed another is way higher than that. The satisfaction an individual gets from eating meat might well be greater than the dissatisfaction that instance causes others, and indeed since there's no objective standard it's impossible to measure exactly.

[toper-centage]

I think it requires a certain mental state of almost complete lack of empathy to enjoy meat though. If you eat meat and never think about these issues, you simply don't care.

[luckylion]

That goes for any activity that is harmful on any scale at any time frame. Smoking is obvious. Skiing? Your accident rate is higher than average, taking away health care resources from people who also need them, also nature is being negatively impacted. Watching Netflix? Have you ever thought about the power your TV needs, and the resources used to manufacture it?

That goes on and on. You may draw a line somewhere and declare "no, from here on it's nonsense", but there's no objectivity, there's no reason why the line should be exactly there, and not, say, on the other side of eating meat.

[logicchains]

>I think it requires a certain mental state of almost complete lack of empathy to enjoy meat though.

Empathy for who/what exactly? Eating a steak is not going to cause anybody any measurable pain. Empathy means feeling what somebody else is feeling.