Do you really think only a minority oppose animal cruelty? How many people are proponents of animal cruelty? Neither of us have data to back it up but if you polled people I think the majority would be against animal cruelty, they just wouldn't spend their time opposing it, that's the difference.

Majority of people (me included) continue to buy meat and other animal products, thus promoting animal cruelty.

I do too, but animal cruelty still bothers me and I try to buy products where I believe that the cruelty has been minimized. Animal cruelty is a spectrum and a lot of people care where on the spectrum they lie.

Except when it's the animals that have been killed for their food, then suddenly the conditions those animals are in are not concerning enough to take action. At the moment it's the minority taking any sort of effective change. Boycotts are too much effort for people these days.

Who are proponents of animal cruelty besides dog/cock fighting fans/operators? I doubt that these groups form a majority.

If they know how most food animals are treated, which seems likely, then most people who eat meat are OK with severe, sometimes grotesque cruelty. It goes beyond opinion: they put their money down for it.

People make compromises with their social circumstances.

They're not "ok" with the level of cruelty but in a pervasive environment of limited culinary and social choices, they're okay with living with that knowledge.

Personally, I think you get further raising better people than trying to impose a moral standard in a population that (for the most part) eats diets that hamper cognition and volition ala high sugar and ultra processed crap. Intermittent fasting and a decent diet would do much more for the quality of moral calculation of people than telling them that their entire culture is morally bad. Because we're humans who utilize different strata of values, not mere moral robots.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, the moralists and priesthoods of the world devalue the very small things which give arise to moral judgment: Diet, climate, and habit.

from merriam Webster online [0]

> Definition of proponent: one who argues in favor of something

Even if people are enabling something doesn't mean that they are proponents. Let's stop with the newspeak and use the correct words for things please.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proponent

Knowing how many food animals are treated and having the option to choose differently are two different things.

Not everyone has the money to choose differently.

At times there is no choice. This is especially true if you are a 15 year old. At 15, you basically eat what your parents eat. You can't generally afford food. You can't always just get a job if your parents won't provide education and/or if your school decides your grades aren't up to working. Oh, and you can't work all that often due to child labor laws.

At times, the actual choice is a bad one. Take eggs, for example. When I have the choice, I choose eggs from hens with larger cages. I realize these are hardly large, but they are better than the alternative. I've only lived one place that I could buy eggs directly from the source (during summer time) - but I'm literally an ocean plus some away from that now.

People honestly need a little bit of animal proteins lest they must take supplements. (Truth: I take vitamin D, as I can't make enough at my northerly location). I'm also mostly vegetarian. I eat fish once a week and I eat eggs and cheese.

I can only speak from my personal experience from living in Perú and the US. So I'd say that the majority of Peruvians and Americans support animal cruelty with the decisions that they make every week at the grocery store.

Being a financial supporter does not make one a proponent. There is nobody out there that I know of (maybe lobbyists) who actively argue that there should be more animal cruelty.