I'm sorry, but I believe you keep misinterpreting my replies, perhaps due to a failure to understand the dialectical structure of this little exchange. So let me try to make that structure clear. Eliezer first claimed that comments of a certain form would be automatically downvoted here at LW, and that my original comment was downvoted because it had that form. I offered in reply a hypothetical situation that involved overt discrimination against certain groups of people, and argued that a comment analogous to mine in reaction to that situation would not and should not be automatically downvoted. You then accused me of morally equating discrimination against such groups of people with the use of non-human animals for human consumption. I then in turn replied that the function of that counterfactual situation had nothing to do with arguing for why meat-eating is wrong, but was instead meant to provide a counterexample to Eliezer's generalization. Finally, in your most recent comment, you defend what you said in your previous post, stressing the fact that what you said was given as the explanation that Eliezer did not feel inclined to offer. But this is completely besides the point. The explanation that you gave took, as evidence that I was equating meat consumption with racism or sexism, the fact that I had used a situation involving racism and sexism as a reply to Eliezer, when as I have said already my having used that situation constitutes no such evidence.