It was all too much effort, so you decided to give up and join the mob.
It wasn't a matter of effort, it was a matter of futility and pointlessness.
Why not?
You tell me why it is immoral. The default position is that it's not immoral.
So your philosophy now is that suffering is good, and you'll encourage more of it by your own actions. Sounds like you gave up the moral high ground.
Please don't twist my words. I never said suffering is good, I said suffering is a necessary component of life and can never be fully erased. It can only be minimized.
Convenience, or need?
Convenience, obviously. That's the word I used isn't it?
So, instead of even going half way, you chose to do nothing at all.
You seem to be confused. I never said I had an issue with killing animals for food. My issue was with the treatment of animals, and the cruelty many factory farms deliver. By currently choosing to purchase all of my animal food products from farms that claim they treat their animals decently, I am doing something.
But enough about me, let's talk about you.
You seem to be against killing animals for food based on the fact that they're sentient. But since when is sentience a grounds for equal treatment? Just because we don't kill or eat humans, we shouldn't kill or eat animals? If you had to save the lives of a dog and a human, ideally you'd save both; but if you had to choose, chances are you'd pick the human.
I mean, how far are you willing to go with the concept of sentience deserving human treatment? Where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw it there? Seeing as how we're against slavery for humans, should we let animals run free too?