On one hand, we are surviving as a species from this livestock mistreatment.

Which essential nutrient does the mistreatment provide? Vitamin cruel?

Normally at this point I might elaborate on how the land use and material inputs of industrial meat and egg production may only contribute to global food insecurity or talk about different forms of protein harvesting and the applicability of different ethical theories to them. I might even provide sources.

But that would probably be a waste of time on you since you don't seem to grasp simple arguments. Here's how they work: You state a proposition and then follow that proposition through a set of steps to a conclusion. A lot of times underlying assumptions are implied so you don't have to follow everything back to defining morality when you want to discuss something else. Sometimes you state a proposition you don't agree with to show why you think its wrong.

Now that thats out of the way, lets go back to the proposition: If humans have -no- ethical obligation to the sentient animals they own or have stewardship over, then there are no ethical arguments for treating them one way or another. They are simply property to be used.

By invoking examples of how we humans have decided that we DO have an ethical obligation to the sentient animals in our care like neglect and abuse laws, I was using the above proposition to argue FOR the ethical treatment of animals.

And while I'm sure that your limited reading comprehension made it super surprising to you that such an argument would pop up in a post about the legality of beastiality in response to a conversation about the role of consent in eating and fucking animals for most other people it isn't the sort of wild tangent you need to be intoxicated to even bring up.