> But the statement in question reads as "I don't give a fuck what happens to any animal"

What exactly is wrong with that statement, though? I personally do give fucks about certain kinds of animals, but I recognize that my choices as to what animals to care about is entirely subjective and is a result of my upbringing. I have no problem with a person who draws the line at "entirely no fucks given about any animal" (though that seems kinda sad to me).

Which... is also different from caring or not caring about malicious cruelty. And I think you could make a further distinction between being a proponent of cruelty (as in "I enjoy torturing animals in my backyard") and being indifferent to it (as in "I personally think it's gross to torture animals, but don't feel it's my or the law's place to force other people not to do it").

(Before I get labeled a monster, I personally think malicious animal cruelty is likely a sign of mental illness and am fine with legislating it away. Regarding animals used as food, I think ultimately we're finding that healthy, sustainable food production often aligns pretty well with increased animal welfare, but I consider that a bonus, not a hard necessity.)

What’s wrong with the statement is that it is ‘entirely subjective,’ like your own views – it is no less arbitrary to include only humans on your list of animals deserving of empathy. Such an ethical rule cannot accommodate the proposition that some kinds of harm to animals (eg. needlessly torturing mammals) are unacceptable and some kinds of harm to humans (eg. self-defence, euthanasia, abortion) are acceptable.

You'll find about ~5% (depending on source) of people have severe difficulties feeling empathy towards fellow humans, let alone animals.

And then there's the bit about future psychopaths practicing their craft as children by torturing animals. That wasn't intended in my initial reply though.