Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[Anomalocaris]

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?

Not necessarily. Two beliefs that might seem like incompatible black and white on a single scale from the smug comfort of inexperienced self-rightness would usually be found upon actual implementation to either exist on two different, orthagonal axis, or really exist as impractical ends of a single practical continum.

As I said before this creates an error of kind, and creates inconsistencies. e.g. absolute 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

Have you ever mistakenly regarded a dog as a human, of any kind? Sorry, you would be a singlarly bad and hopefully non-representative exemple. But even you can clearly be distinguished from a dog, at least by me and most others. We would not have mistakeb any dog or cow for you, or any version of homo sapiens for another other species.

In practice, there currently are large, and actionable, gaps between any member of homo sapien species as conventionally understood, and any members of any other species. The fact that you chose to dwell upon measures that appear to blur the difference under some circumstances does not mean we can not use other standards that outline the present extent differences in sharp relief. There is for example a vast gap between the difference that exist amongst existent human population, and that which exist between any human and any other animal.

More generally, differences and distinctions are fundamentally arbitrary concept that exist only to serve a purpose. Some may appear to be based on unambiguiously measurable characteristics. But all are designed to suit a particular purpose. If my purpose it better the welfare of humanity with limited resources, then by god I will come up with some measure of distinction that allow me to best apply my resources without self-defeating dissipation of my resources.

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

Why do you so foolishly keep on insisting what I must do this or would have no option but to do that or that when it is so completely and utterly effortless for me to do otherwise with absolute impunity? I obviously have the option to do so. I just did. There, I just did it again.

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.

In practice they do not recognize it be wrong, your simulatenously conceited and plaintiff yelps of "must" not withstanding. So it is not zero.

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.

There is no forever. I may value the dislocation of one cow farmer to be equivalent to 1 million times the suffering of all the cattles to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years. I think given a appropriate discount rate for uncertainty over existence of humanity in 10 million years, keeping just one cow hand slaughtering cows today handily outweight the probabalistic value of suffering of all cows to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years.

Now you will undoubtedly now insist I "mustn't" value suffering of cows so lightly or I "can not but" value a cow more highly. So what if I regard that with the same disdain as your previous insistence of "must"?

Give me a practical reason why I should contenance your value system while working within my own?