I don’t even get where you think “don’t abuse animals” was even PART of the main message of that trip. I’m legitimately confused as to how you thought “don’t abuse animals” played any real part in the storytelling. There’s not really any emphasis on it. It’s incidental. Of course war profiteers at the giant casino are so self-centered that they’re not treating ANYONE who isn’t also rich with any respect. The KIDS being abused was more of a big deal than the Fathiers were.

This reads to me like people who got super upset with Luke drinking Sea Cow milk? Where the point of the scene was “look at him trying to show off and freak out Rey and show how much he doesn’t need society anymore” but all anyone could focus on was “titty milk” (as if there is animal milk that doesn’t feature “titties” producing it. People were really showing their asses with their bizarre fixation on “titties” in that scene). I don’t know: Canto Bight isn’t really about animal abuse at all. I can’t agree with the notion the “ham-fisted” writing was “pandering” to an anti-abuse narrative, because I honestly don’t think it’s even really IN there to any degree beyond “how do we make these amoral people look more amoral.”

Animal Abuse isn’t the point of anything on Canto Bight. It’s a symptom of a larger moral absence and malaise. The Child Abuse is a bigger point being made - and even that isn’t really the point of Canto Bight at all.