You said these things were "bad when they on net hurt people". I noticed you said people, and not non-human animals, but you have said that you put at least some value on non-human animals.

That was in the context of thinking about sexism and racism. I assumed they have little impact on non-humans.

But how far does the pro-human preference go? Assuming we agree on (1) the quality of life of certain nonhuman animals as they are made for food, (2) the capabilities for these nonhuman animals to feel a range of pain, and (3) the change in your personal quality of life by adopting habits to avoid most to all of this food (three big assumptions), then it seems like you're fine with a significant measure of spiecieism.

I guess if you're reaction is "so what", we might just have rather different terminal values, though I'm kind of surprised that would be the case.

I could be underestimating how much animals suffer (I almost certainly am to a certain existent simply because it is not something I have researched, and less suffering is the comforting default answer), you could be overestimating how much you care about animals being in pain due to anthropomorphizing them somewhat.