Resolving a moral conflict is not being inconsistent. Here's a hypothetical scenario that demonstrates what I mean:

Assume you're in the US and pay federal income taxes. This means that you participate in and fund the industry via agricultural subsidies. Feed grain is the number one recipient of crop subsidies, and most of that goes into the meat industry. Your tax dollars directly make meat cheaper for Americans to consume, before any dietary considerations even come into play.

Now, no one is really forcing you to pay your taxes. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you wanted to follow the principle to its bitter end, you would quit paying taxes and go to jail. Plenty of people do it. History is full of steadfast people who choose incarceration over violating their morals.

But say you have three children, and you (rightly) believe it is your moral duty to support them. You might still think that it would be best not to pay taxes that support the meat industry. It might hurt you every month to see the money taken out of your paycheck. But the principle of supporting your family outweighs the principle of refusing to fund the suffering of animals, so you continue to pay your taxes.

There isn't a stitch of inconsistency here. Sure, there's a moral conflict to be resolved. But moral conflicts come a dime a dozen. In the scenario I constructed, one moral consideration easily outweighed the other.

That was long-winded, but I'm trying to show that this:

You are participating and funding an industry you see as immoral.

doesn't have to be inconsistent or hypocritical, which is the very first thing I said in the thread.

Lastly, again, I'm not trying to talk about the morality of eating meat. I am only talking about consistency. I understand that you are more interested in talking about morality, and I didn't expect to write a novel when I first commented, but I wanted to clarify what I originally meant. Sorry for the length.