The above two statements suggest that you didn't bother to read my previous post. I made it very clear in my previous post that my support for what you describe as cruelty is not "blithe", but rather a carefully considered standpoint. Nor did I say anything about animals needing to "die for every occasion". These are just assumptions you have made, to fit with your view point. And as for your final sentence, well I was a little suprised it made it through the censors, it was a flagrant case of not being bothered to argue, and instead resorting to cheap insults. Since your behaviour has hardly earned my respect, it's not as if being offensive is going to upset me.
Why should you debate me? Well I suppose that if you believe yourself to be as right as you clearly do, you have a moral responsibilty to try and show me what the correct viewpoint is. After all if you suceed then I will hold your point of view. You could try and explain where you are coming from, and thus earn my respect, but since your respect for me is clearly rock bottom then I doubt you could be bothered. You could formulate your own ideas beyond bigotry. There are any number of reasons why you should debate me.
Not least is the fact that at present it looks like your reaction is mere knee jerk, that you haven't thought about the subject for yourself, and that you are "blithely" following what you have been programmed to think. I was at a school, and a university, where we were taught to have views for ourselves, at the moment I don't believe that is what you are doing.
You are wrong, in my view; I am wrong, in your view, at the very least it would be interesting to trade views rather than insults.
p.s. Your dog would choose meat wouldn't it? Surely you are denying it a fundamental right to choice, and purely on the basis of your beliefs. Do it a favour, buy it some minced beef.