Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

Firstly you only demean yourself with insults. Its interrupting the debate and you do make a number of interesting points, so please try to be polite.

Your whole argument fails because you appeal to natural kinds. Ill try to explain to you why this is so

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.

Nope, the two beliefs just happen to be on the same axis, and just happen to be contradictory. Do you agree one is logically wrong?

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.

If your ethics are correct then it is only logical that they should hold true under all ethical dilemmas. Agreed?
1. Lets I were to take a human brain and put it inside a dogs body, and using some amazing future science could ensure that while the dog, behaved like a dog, inside was a thinking human brain that could experience everything the dog could
Would the suffering of this man/dog be worthy of this ethical consideration?

2. Lets say i got a lump of human neurons in a dish, and managed to create some basic network of neurons that think and feel. Would these this cells be worthy of ethical consideration?

3. Now lets go back in time, to our evolutionary ancestors, at what point do your ancestors become worthy of ethical consideration? Are Neanderthals worthy of consideration? They had different physical characteristics, and even interbred with H. Sapiens. You see evolution does not just move from one species directly to the next, there are series of intermediate steps, and if those intermediates are worthy of ethical consideration then why are their ancestors not also worthy?
The point is there is nothing “essential” about humanity, ie humanity is not a natural kind. There are no characteristics by which you could define all of humanity.

Your ethics only are consistent at a superficial layer, when pushed a little deeper they fall apart.

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?

As the universe is flat, then forever is certainly possible. So there is still a possibility that meat eating causes an infinite amount of suffering.
One could of course value human suffering significantly higher than animal suffering, but then in order to not fall prey to the logical inconsistencies of the “natural kind” argument which I outlined above, then one has to show why human suffering is significantly greater. The fact is there is no reason to assume this, and all the neuroscientific evidence demonstrates the opposite.
So there you go, your argument presents an number of logical inconsistencies and must be incorrect. Eat meat is cruel and wrong.