I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don't need to.

What you've amounted to saying is "if the world can't be 100% vegan, why try?"

Let's try this then-

Me: "respect women"

Misogynist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"

Or this one's good-

Me: "don't be racist"

Racist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"

If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you're saying, what do you think their response would be?

And similarly, what would MLK say to you?

No, before you call out my comparison, I'm not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I'm comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it's awfully similar.

In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.

People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.