When you eat whatever it is you eat, you're killing something. Just because it's not warm and fuzzy and doesn't have eyeballs doesn't make a damn bit of difference. How do you know if plants feel pain? Cut off a branch of a tree - see that sap that comes weeping out? Are those tears? It's obviously a physiological response to damage. If you're over-emotional and internalize the death of something, that's your ethical problem. As for me I like steak, I like lobster, I like green beans, and I can look all three in the eyes (leaves?) and say "yum."
Now if you want to make cases about treating the animals with at least some semblance of respect, OK. I'm not gonna argue that Japanese harvest of whales is pointless because most of the meat is wasted. Or that the grisly death of male chicks is disturbing. Maybe instead of beating the anti-meat drum and going against the vast majority of the population, instead you suggest that people eat roosters too and find something else for the Japanese fisherman to do with their time.
Complaining about massive drains on resources is illogical when you waste your own resources espousing an ideology which will most likely never ever be accepted by the rest of the world. How 'bout getting off your soapbox and spending time trying to find a "happy medium" that people can embrace instead?