But there’s also something to be said of simply opting out of a system you believe to be evil. For example, with slavery, the correct response is not to advocate to regulate or reduce how much slavery occurs while still being a slave owner. The correct response is first to not be a slave owner.
I’m trying to understand the extent of your particular position, or which similarity to focus on
As for pet ownership, I honestly don’t know. I think it’s certainly ethically complicated but personally I don’t think it’s wrong per se. I would say there’s a massive difference between keeping a dog as a pet and keeping a tiger or monkey, though.
but house animals though
Related though: we haven't discussed the energy efficiency of producing meat vs plant matter, which is another important factor, unrelated to suffering.
Not quite, I find the chosen solution to be arbitrary and that the chosen solution continues to move with new information about what suffering is. Echoed by the less verbose quip someone made earlier in the thread about needing to switch to a rock based diet.
I think several other rationales for the same dietary preferences are stronger, for example being against factory farming has nothing to do with only consuming plants it has to do with not consuming factory farmed meat.
I think several other responses to the mammalian suffering observation are stronger, for example, regulating or reducing how much of it occurs, which would have a greater impact than your dietary preference.