Note
The symptom language trap
When you frame the issue as suffering, harm, abuse, killing, or pain, the bystander agrees cruelty is bad. That feels like progress, but you set the wrong problem. They will try to solve suffering, not exploitation: humane farming, backyard eggs, roadkill, leftovers, hunting, rescued hens who 'choose' to lay. You end up adjudicating edge cases instead of holding them to respect and purposes. Recovery: stop debating whether their version is okay. Reassert step 3: can you truly respect other animals if you use them for your purposes? Or step 8: how many more should be exploited because of you, zero or more? The root wrong is using someone for your purposes, not how much they suffer.
Gives ammo
Non-vegan: 'I eat roadkill and eggs from my rescued hens, no one suffers.' Activist: 'Well, roadkill is complicated, but factory farms are definitely cruel.'
Gives nothing
Non-vegan: 'I eat roadkill and eggs from my rescued hens, no one suffers.' Activist: 'I'm not asking whether they suffered. Can you respect them if you use them for your purposes?'