In an animal rights world the transition will be slow, anybody who works in animal agriculture will become crop farmers and help make plant protein crops accessable (all protein and essential nutrients exist in crops, fungi, and supplements, the latter is already used by vegans and non-vegans alike). Industries and economies always move on. The problem is that animal domestication and slaughter is already too normalized, with more vegans, less animals will be bred into literal industrial holocausts. Obviously select few groups in the third world and indigenous groups still need animal consumption for survival but this doesn’t apply to the majority. We’re morally obligated to live without consuming and killing them, there’s no nice way to kill when we lack survival necessity for it. Animal welfare is inherently flawed because it allows these inherent cruelties while rights recognizes animal individuality and abolishes animal slaughter and their dependency on humans.

Animal welfare tolerates inherent cruelties while animal rights abolishes these, rights are the only path.

The title is a hint that they’re funded by the fur industry, they have to lie their way through to keep their means of money intact.

Animal welfare doesn’t consider animals as individuals, it objectifies them as accessories, tools, or goods. Animal rights is what rejects this concept.

Pets don’t choose to be domesticated, and people do use them as living accessories often in the same way people use slaves. It’s not exactly the same but very similar. A lot of pets are neglected just cause people grow tired of them as if they’re toys, or they’re put to work such as being used by police and military. It’s dangerous and stressful for them.

That’s completely stupid and hypocritical, the people who kill some animals against people doing exactly what they do but to other animals. It’s beyond brainless to fund conservation by hunting, it’s no different than having a hitman kill someone and then the hitman gives the money to charity, all you do is trade one life for another.

I can easily frame your logic by saying “It’s sad that you don’t agree with serial killers. The debate over human rights and not killing humans is based on values, opinions, and shades of grey. It’s sad that you must brand serial killers as biased, untruthful, or ignorant jsu because they don’t agree with you.”

There’s no such thing as a right or freedom to oppress a sentient being, it contradicts the purpose of rights to begin with. You are correct in one aspect, morality is an opinion. It’s based on the fact that sentient beings can suffer but whether or not it’s right or wrong to kill a sentient being is an opinion that’s universally agreed upon. If that can be agreed upon with humans it logically should for animals too. You can use any excuse that you use to justify killing animals to kill humans too, cause sentience and the capacity to feel pain is constant and unchanging for the most part. The vast majority of animals including the ones slaughtered for your precious fur are as intelligent as human children.

Exactly, the website is made by people who profit off of animal products so they have to lie and cheat to give the impression that they’re morally in the clear. You can see how much bias is in their diagram where they childishly mock animal rights and only have a one sided analysis.