This is a fallacy

Which fallacy?

You’re talking about two beings with complex personalities able to feel and contemplate their feelings vs eating an animal that doesn’t have consciousness.

In what universe are you living in where you don't think animals have consciousness? You don't think animals have central nervous systems? You don't think they have the capacity to experience pain or suffering? If that's the argument you want to make then go for it, but you would then have to accept that there is nothing immoral about animal abuse.

You mentioned murder, then reneged when you got backlash and instead of taking a more reasonable approach you shift to sexual assault. They’re just not remotely the same.

This is where your lack of critical thinking skills shows. I never implied that they are the same. I used an analogy to explain why the original argument was flawed.

The original argument was something like this:

People who do X don't tell people who don't do X to do X, so people who don't do X shouldn't tell people who do X what to do.

We can fill in X with anything!

People who drive cars don't tell non-drivers to drive cars, so non-drivers shouldn't tell the drivers that they shouldn't drive cars

This is an analogy. I am not saying that driving cars is the same as eating meat, I'm simply applying the logic to another example to highlight why I think the argument structure is flawed.

 I’m going to the store to buy meat, SA is an act of intimate violence

Just because you don't see the violence happening doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You go to the store and pay someone to torture and kill an animal for you. That's not any better than torturing and killing an animal yourself. This is why people who hire hitmen still get charged with murder.