Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

No, one of their beliefs might be practically unactionable. One of their beliefs might have been expressed imprecisely, inaccurately, or incompletely. One of their beliefs might be constrained in practice by another of their beliefs. One of their beliefs might be to say and act as whim dictates within certain tolerances.

Might have? Yep, if they were to hold one of the beliefs you say then that is true, but it is my thought experiment. A person simply holds two contradictory beliefs. Surely you agree one must be wrong?

I've given you at least 3 examples. That you might deny what is plain to view does not help your case. I will repeat them now:

1) I could value reduction of suffering as primary concern, but only amongst humans.

As I said before this creates an error of kind, and creates inconsistencies. e.g. absolute natural kinds based on species do not exist as we evolved. What distinguishes us from other species are are characteristics, but there are no characterises that ALL humans share, and animals don't have. See similar arguments about errors of kind here

Effectively you would have no option but to exclude disabled people from your ethics, which again creates inconsistencies.

2) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard deprivation of meat from those humans who desire it to be a greater suffering then the death of the animals that could have fed the desire. Therefore suffering intrisically increases overall if suffering amongst food animal decreases.

Nope, the suffering of human from not being able to eat meat would be zero if they chose it for themselves because they recognised it was wrong. Secondly after one generation all humans would feel no suffering at not being able to eat meat, therefore it would be a finite amount of suffering. Animals however would continue suffering for ever, creating an infinite amount of suffering. Therefore, you are wrong.

3) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard the dislocation required to implement a move away from meat diet to be the equivalent of greater suffering than death of animals required to maintain status quo. Therefore suffering increases overall in practice if suffering amongst food animal decreases

Again, the dislocation to move away from eating meat only need happen once, but animal suffering continues forever, as your habits are passed down the generations.