As an observer side note, this exchange is a great example of moral purity meeting harm reduction stances. A moral purist doesn’t want to compromise their moral integrity, but taking a harm reduction stance means seeing that there’s no achieving the goal without making compromises. A moral purist stance thus means accepting that the general result might be even worse because of the personal refusal to bend, but on the other hand harm reduction stance means you are essentially forced to stain yourself with acting against your own morals.

Both sides here thrive for a world where no animals needs to be eaten, but the way to get there is seen differently. Who is right depends entirely on do you see having absolute moral values or focusing on the practical results more important