If you kill an animal and eat it, that means you have replaced the meat you were going to buy in the store right? So if no additional animals are killed in the big slaughterhouses because of you not buying meat during that period, doesn't that make it equal? You get my point? Total number of animals killed are the same, if no one hunted, then more people would buy meat, and more animals would be killed by the industry. No?
I hope I don't seem obsessed but I try to respond to every post directed at me. Plus I've had the hunting argument many times before.
But I will say this to your post, I think I do get your point, and you're right, a meat eater who hates hunting yet buys dead animals in the grocery will have to paddle fast (as they say) to make that action justified using the "we shouldn't inflict unnecessary pain" argument.
At the worst, they would just be a hypocrite, but their claim that "Hunting is immoral" could still be true. Don't make the mistake (like many others have in this thread) of thinking Person A being a hypocrite has anything to do with the truth/falsity of Argument Z that person A made.
But yea you are right that the meat eating anti-hunter while claiming NOT to be a hypocrite has a lot of arguing to do, I will just say that it would be easier for the anti-hunting person to resort back to a pure vegan or vegetarian stance and argue from there.
Does that make any sense?