Practically, I agree with everything you say! So the disagreement is really just on how I went about making the analogies, I think. So maybe you're right in saying that I 'got lost in trying to explain it clearly' and 'Analogies only carry over so far'.
Let me make a list of things I'm in agreement with you:
We should do whatever we can to lessen harm in the world. We should try and create meat in labs so that people stop killing animals. We should strive to be better in every single respect we can be better at. (Can you tell I'm a meliorist?!) We should always strive to learn, second-guess our actions (in a good way), and even tho I'm an atheist I can say some good ol' Catholic guilt can play a role in personal development and 'looking at oneself in the mirror'. I'm definitely not arguing that we should continue to do bad things that we can obviously stop doing, because 'every upvote corresponds to a flag'. I am saying that if you believe the Earth is round, you probably don't believe it's flat, and that you'll do something about those who do. If you believe in Darwin, you probably don't believe in the most popular (and correct) interpretation of Genesis, and your 'valuing' Darwin will transform into some action regarding what children should be taught. It's those kinds of beliefs I'm saying we should stand up and admit. If a vegan's at all a vegan, he's probably faking his politeness when he's seated at a table with meat-eaters, as I would if I were seated with racists.
I must say about free will, it's been proven not to exist by both philosophy and science. There's no way around it. The only debate for instance in philosophy right now is between compatibilists and incompatibilists, and both believe every single human eye-blink is 101% determined, with room to spare. They just disagree on the definition of free will. Schopenhauer's Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will distinguishes between freedom of the will and freedom of action, saying we can't have the former but that we can have the latter, and I think that might be what you mean.
I can like bananas, or "love" them, but there isn't an opposite to hate or dislike.
So you think that your liking bananas does not 'spill over' into anything else that doesn't concern the very act and instance of you eating and enjoying a banana? So for instance this article doesn't make you feel anything? I imagine it does! And you can easily imagine how, if we were talking about issues more pressing than bananas, you might easily be spurred into taking political action, or some kind of action. We never value something in isolation. It always spills over into the rest of reality. With every 'I love' there's an 'I hate' hiding ready to come out into the open! (such as 'I hate monocultures' or whatever! :P)
Liking Green doesn't mean you hate magenta.
It might mean you hate color-blindness. Think of it this way: there would be no reason for you to dislike color-blindness if there was no such thing as its opposite. I think disliking color-blindness can be directly traced, at least partly, to our 'liking green'.
So I hope you get the gist of where I'm coming from. I didn't respond to every fine point of your critique (which I thank you for, it was a long one so it took some time and effort!), because I feel it may have been a misunderstanding of where I was coming from. Though it does seem we disagree on some points maybe, I think we agree on the important one: we should do everything we can to avoid harming whatever it's possible not to harm. Even Merry in the gif, who thinks wearing a scarf will save the 'organisms that dwell in the air', has got her idealistic heart in the right place probably, and if science in the future can make it so that we can breathe without killing bacteria, I don't see why we shouldn't opt to do that, all things being equal.
I like this point of view as well. However, when you add it the idea of.
I'm trying to find a balance that I agree with, where we can go about 'harming' or participating in the cycle of life. But, maybe it isn't so much about the act (harm), but the intention (or lack of intention) behind the act...
Lol! You actually want to harm living organisms?!
I don't want to, but I do reconcile and attempt (if I remember to) show respect. Which I think is the point. It's almost like a reverence towards taking life. Being thankful for the life's gift. You know?
I understand how that makes you a better person, and the whole situation more ethical I guess (I would surely prefer to be killed by someone who'll feel the weight of what he did than by someone who won't), but I don't think showing respect etc. makes it okay to kill.