I'm aware that fewer animals killed means fewer animals bred into captivity.  Not sure what your point is.  Or do you think it's better for animals to be born into a system that (for example) puts them in a tiny cage and keeps them there their entire life at a huge cost to the planet's environment, and to the health of the humans who eat them?  Nearly 99% of the animals on the planet are now domesticated animals, with animal agriculture ironically doing more to cut into wild spaces for animals than any one other thing.  About a third of the planet's ice-free land is now devoted to animal agriculture, either directly or indirectly, and it's completely unsustainable.

Pointing out that animal agriculture involves rape and murder would have seemed an excessive comparison to me too, when I ate meat.  No one likes to hear bad things about our habits.  Things definitely change when you "take the red pill" and learn what really goes on behind closed doors in factory farms.  Murdering and raping animals is only not excessive to the degree that we accept it as necessary.  But it's 100% unnecessary since we have alternatives, and those alternatives are generally cheaper and healthier.

We humans engage in a curious form of racism, and that's thinking the human race is better than other kind of animals (speciesism, as it's sometimes called).  With how horrible humans are to each other, to the environment, etc., I don't think the evidence suggests that humans are deserving of special treatment.

The science isn't really all over the place.  Vested interests are creating studies to attempt to sew doubt with the public, just like the tobacco industry did in the second half of the 20th century.  Here's an example: want to create a study that tries to debunk cholesterol being bad?  Create a study where everyone eats the same amount of cholesterol, measure their cholesterol, note that they all end up with different amounts of cholesterol, and declare that there's no correlation.  That's the kind of science that the dairy and egg industries are famous for.  But it's junk science: everyone has different starting levels of cholesterol because of genetic differences.  However, if you reduce cholesterol in people's diet, you get a drop in bad cholesterol.  If you increase the cholesterol in people's diet, you get a rise in bad cholesterol.  Open and shut.

Independent science, not funded by vested interests, shows a consistent narrative.  Cholesterol is bad, saturated fat is bad, excessive amounts of animal protein in the diet is an anti-nutrient due to it overwhelming the liver, etc.  Vested interests are becoming increasingly brazen in creating junk science to convince people to buy their products, so government health agencies have had to start ignoring all industry-funded science in coming up with health recommendations (as the Canadian government recently did when updating the Canada Food Guide, as one of several recent examples).

You really don't have to look any farther than this: the healthiest and longest-living populations are the most plant-based such as the traditional Okinawan diet (98% plant-based), the Adventist vegans (100% plant-based), etc.  The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science.  And these populations not only live longer, they have a reputation for being vibrant in their old age (aging okinawans doing tai chi, aging adventists mowing their own lawns instead of being in nursing homes, etc.)  People can debate theories until you're blue in the face, but when you put it to the test the more plant-based a population is the more likely it is to thrive.

There are examples of largely plant-based populations in pre-history where "old age" was living into your 70s so, yes, that was true for some of them.  Less plant-based typically meant shorter lives, and worse weather tended to mean shorter lives, so plant-based populations near the equator typically lived the longest, and the inuit typically lived the shortest lives in pre-history.

You say Asians got un-used to eating dairy.  It's that they rarely ate dairy in the first place, not that they at some point got used to not eating it.  Humans only started eating dairy about 8-10K years ago, a blink of an eye evolutionarily.

And your body can get used to almost anything.  Someone from a long line of heavy drinkers might have a higher tolerance towards alcohol.  But that doesn't mean being a heavy drinker is good for you.

The science isn't really all over the place.  Vested interests are creating studies to attempt to sew doubt with the public, just like the tobacco industry did in the second half of the 20th century.  Here's an example: want to create a study that tries to debunk cholesterol being bad?  Create a study where everyone eats the same amount of cholesterol, measure their cholesterol, note that they all end up with different amounts of cholesterol, and declare that there's no correlation.  That's the kind of science that the dairy and egg industries are famous for.  But it's junk science: everyone has different starting levels of cholesterol because of genetic differences.  However, if you reduce cholesterol in people's diet, you get a drop in bad cholesterol.  If you increase the cholesterol in people's diet, you get a rise in bad cholesterol.  Open and shut.

Independent science, not funded by vested interests, shows a consistent narrative.  Cholesterol is bad, saturated fat is bad, excessive amounts of animal protein in the diet is an anti-nutrient due to it overwhelming the liver, etc.  Vested interests are becoming increasingly brazen in creating junk science to convince people to buy their products, so government health agencies have had to start ignoring all industry-funded science in coming up with health recommendations (as the Canadian government recently did when updating the Canada Food Guide, as one of several recent examples).

You really don't have to look any farther than this: the healthiest and longest-living populations are the most plant-based such as the traditional Okinawan diet (98% plant-based), the Adventist vegans (100% plant-based), etc.  The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science.  And these populations not only live longer, they have a reputation for being vibrant in their old age (aging okinawans doing tai chi, aging adventists mowing their own lawns instead of being in nursing homes, etc.)  People can debate theories until you're blue in the face, but when you put it to the test the more plant-based a population is the more likely it is to thrive.

Vegan haters are on the rise, tho; thirsty for a chance to trigger vegans.

That's the thing several things you have said here have already been debunked by scientist. I heard 3 hour interview where a scientist went over all of this and she had no vested interest. Do you have a source the "The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science"  Couldn't find it online. Also stuff like this isn't science so we do have to look further. There is a process and a way things are done in the science community and they are done that way for a reason. Just going "look at them over there, do that they do cause it worked for them" isn't science.

In fact that was one of the main complaints during that 3 hour interview is how horrible studies are being done and it made me realize that you can't just read a studies headline you need to get into and see how it was done. She broke down one of those vegan documentaries and verified all their sources and went through each study in their source and broke down what the issues were with the study. One of the studies used by the american heart association was literally just a survey. Do you eat meat? Yes or No. They then used that data to decide if eating meat increases heart disease, etc.

In the last 40 years we have been told that fat is terrible for health and we should absolutely avoid it, especially saturated fat. Meanwhile, diseases linked to poor nutrition increased exponentially. Clearly correlation doesn't imply causation, but at least this gives an important information: the so called experts got it totally wrong for the last few decades.

Are you implying that most people actually heeded that advice and have been avoiding fats and saturated fats for the last 40 years? 

Not as awesome as generalizing an entire group.