This is an inaccurate citation. I write:

“These perspectives are theoretical because they are not literally held by anyone: God does not really exist and “the universe” and “humanity” are only concepts and not minds with actual perspectives.”

Otherwise, I appreciate your response but honestly do not follow much of it. I do notice that you include two common assumptions: one, that animals somehow exist for human purposes; two, somehow human taste pleasure trumps animals’ interests in not being harmed and killed. Both of these assumptions do not hold.

As for the final sentences, the purpose of this piece is not to try and convince people to act differently, but rather to locate an aspect of the fierce resistance to change.