The week before last a nail got driven into the front left tyre of my car. It was damaged. The car, being fairly modern, displayed a warning on the dashboard to say so. Did the car experience suffering?
No, but then cars are not sentient.
It's clear to me that you do not have any idea of whether any particular animal experiences pain in the way that we do or even have a clue as to whether pain is suffering. That doesn't mean vegetarianism is wrong. Here is an animal, I don't know if rearing it for meat is causing suffering, therefore I won't take the chance. However, your assertions lack evidence and your position leads to consequences that are probably untenable e.g. we couldn't kill cockroaches or rats.
It's clear to me that when something you presumably enjoy (eating animals) is being critiqued - and therefore, by extension, you likewise - you will throw up a smokescreen of the most far-fetched and implausible and Jesuitical would-be defences that fly in the face of all we already know about animal anatomy and physiology in order to continue doing it while fooling yourself that you're not doing something fundamentally wrong. It's the omnivore's three-step. It typically runs:
1. Deny that non-human animals can suffer in any sense at all;
2. When faced with overwhelming and undeniable evidence of suffering, concede the point but deny that it's all that bad really; and finally
3. Petulantly assert that you don't actually care anyway.
'Twas ever thus.
