[zoppiklonikaa]

also:

a claim which paints the Buddha himself, who was a non-vegetarian, as being at odds with his own most fundamental precepts.

i have given my opinion, namely, your view above is non-sequitur. the Buddha's eating habits were beyond categorisation because the Buddha did not choose what to eat

when wanderers such as Vacchagotta attempted to categorise the Buddha, the Buddha discouraged such categorisation

What is at issue is not "empathy with vegetarianism". What is at issue is the claim that non-vegetarianism is "against Buddhist precepts",.

again, in my opinion, your view above is non-sequitur

as i have said, the precepts are not rigid rules or commandments laid down by the Buddha

they are training rules which an individual interprets and applies according to their circumstances & spiritual disposition

in the Dhammapada, it is said:

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. thus, for a certain individual practitioner, non-vegetarianism is against Buddhist precepts because they have the motivation to not kill or cause another to kill

for a different individual practitioner, non-vegetarianism is not against Buddhist precepts because they chose to differentiate between the killer and the eater

neither is right. neither is wrong. each is a valid interpretation according to individual dispositions

thus, again, your appeal to some kind of legalistic rigidity similar to the Ten Commandments, Koran, etc, is non-sequitur

regards