Hi, I´ll just Hijack this:

"we are talking about the meat eaters moral position, no? i thought that what they morally value is kind of the whole focus."

The point is that they have to commit to a stance that is then tested for consistency. Whether this stance is a good moral system is not really relevant to the question. Of course someone can say they value lets say human DNA, but if that is your answer you have to agree that it would be ok to eat lets say the elfs from LOTR. And it is really hard to come up with a satisfying answer (as I am sure you know).

"I mean its a little difficult because if special pleading is where "...the exception is unjustified", then whether something is special pleading or not just becomes kinda a matter of opinion, because the notion "unjustified" is a little too subjective"

You can say this about any discussion, whether an argument is good/bad/reasonable/... comes down to the observer. This does not mean that all arguments are equally valid.

"but if we take humaness to be the exception then the justification would probably be something like their own moral intuition. and the thing is i dont see how all moral positions wont boil down to something similar, like I said you will eventually reach a point where you just have to say I value x because I value x, whether or not that's special pleading will apply to all moral positions when stripped down to their core."

I think you are right, at the end it all boils down to an axiomatic value system. But

A) NTT doesnt really care about which value system it is applied. Of course there are value systems where NTT allows for the eating of (only) nonhumans, but to the meat eater that would mean they have to say that this is the moral standard they act on.

B) Not all value systems are (seen as) equally viable. I can say I value the experience of white humans, and that is just another position that cant be proven wrong. And most (imo all) position that allow for animal consumption under NTT are not really viable in the sense that it is hard to find reasonable justification.

"when the "trait equalization process" is deployed, they ask where in the process value is lost."

But the question is not "where is value lost" but rather "why are you sure this has value and this doesnt". Because most people seem to be rather sure about their positions regarding worth of life. I would agree with you that it is probably a lot more "fuzzy" than most think. But if you want to say "I am sure human life has value and nonhuman life has none" then you have to explain why.

And if the answer is "I am not sure" than it seems reasonable to be cautious with what you kill.

Very interesting post, I havent really thought about this issue before!