If you are considering leaving, please don't. While some here may take your stances to be aggressive, that does not mean that they do not have a place, and that they are not considered by others. You are actually very reasonable a in your responses to most criticisms, and I think there is something missed by some here in that there are underlying differences in where our moral centers are and the corresponding ideological underpinnings. Part of the reasonable discussion that happens on this site comes with a caveat that arguments have to be couched in a manner that is socially reasonable, as if you are having a face-to-face discussion, and some disagree that this is taking place. This is far different from the fact that your beliefs are not shared or heard. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of room for discussion when: 1) You believe that the consuming of animal products makes the consumer complicit in genocide, as animal rights are equally important and trump even personal health considerations that most consumers find themselves facing when considering veganism/vegetarianism. Not to say that I agree with the health-based premise. 2) Those in opposition do not like to be told that they are participating in said genocide, that their personal tastes and something as intensely private as their food consumption come under scrutiny and could be construed as mass murder, given that they have probably given the matter of vegetarianism it's fair share of consideration and come out on the opposite side of the moral fence. This does not mean that this conversation has no place, this means that most people's minds are settled on the matter, but a conversation can take place as to why, and some on the periphery who have not given it much consideration can take note and make that choice for themselves.
You are completely right about how different moral centers affect how we perceive a certain topic or conversation. I also think there's a bit of a cultural gap which might not be helping. Where I come from people don't chew their words. We speak what we think and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way, but that's ok because we're being honest and we'll get the same honesty in return. I rarely use deliberately aggressive language, so it makes me ponder how much of the negative response is due to my way of expressing myself and how much is from automatic defensiveness that triggers on certain people. It's impossible to talk about animal rights without indirectly insinuating mass murder. That is the elephant in the room and that is why it is impossible to miss it. However, why should that be received with such negativity? Because it goes against the established culture. Today we look back at people who fought for human rights with admiration. I'm sure those people fought through hell against the arrogance and selfishness of the human ego before winning those rights. I don't see the battle for animal rights to be much different. In fact I believe that human rights make absolutely no sense in a world with slaughter houses. Just typing that term makes my hair creep - slaughter houses. Houses of murder. A place where we send creatures, as long as they're not our own, to be killed, skinned, de-feathered, de-boned, sliced, packaged for human pleasure. How can we not look at this and not agree that it's sick?!! Anyway, because I feel so strongly about this injustice I come across extreme to many. And I certainly feel isolated or ignored by the many. And because this is a tough battle to fight on my own, sometimes I consider giving up... until I come across the next comment about how tasty some dead body was, which makes my heart revolt and ignites the fire all over again. And I'm exhausted.