Eating Meat, Preference or Necessity?

[AWoodside]

Many people who eat meat feel comfortable with being against things like torturing cats in microwaves. Their argument is that eating meat is a necessity, whereas torturing pets is nothing more than some sadistic way for deviants to get pleasure. This distinction seperates the cases and allows them to hold the view that while raising and slaughtering animals for consumption is ok, drowning a dog in a river because it makes you giggle is not. I'm wondering if this line of thinking is fundamentally inconsistent, at least in certain contexts.

The fact of the matter is that eating animals is no longer a necessity in the first world. It is extremely easy to be a vegetarian and be just as healthy (perhaps healthier) as your meat eating friends if you're proactive about your diet (this may require taking vitamin supplements). Sure it's a bit inconvient and may cost a bit more, but these claims are far far weaker than the claim that it's a necessity.

So if eating meat is no longer a survival necessity, what is it? It seems like nothing more than an aesthetic preference to me. I don't need to eat meat, in fact I'd probably be healthier if I didn't, I just get a lot of pleasure out of it. I'm finding it hard to condemn the behavior of someone who gets a lot of pleasure out of killing animals for fun while continuing to eat meat myself.

Any thoughts?

p.s. I suppose some poor people could still make the argument that eating meat is a survival necessity because they can't afford to be healthy otherwise... but this line of thought also seems to have problems that I'll bracket for later.