I didn't want to go beyond commenting the form --how the post is presented. But as you answered, I'd like to ask you something about the content as well:

I'm so confused on why you wrote the post given the preferences you believe people (EAs?) have and that you are (almost?) vegetarian/vegan. Making the change you propose decreases a bit animal pain... while decreasing the amount of meat one eats decreases it much more. 

Hi Vasco, thanks for the answer and the upvote (I guess it was you).

I think most people would prefer decreasing human healthy life by a few minutes across billions of humans over roughly a century over soon causing to one pet tens of hours more of annoying pain, tens of hours more of hurtful pain, a few hours more of disabling pain, and a few seconds more of excruciating pain.

I first want to say that I imagine you just answered fast and without giving it much thought, so I don't expect this to really reflect your believes. Even so I have to reply what is written.

1. Maybe it is true that most people would prefer this. It still would be a values-dependent issue.
2. Even if it would be true that most people feel like this, you cannot pretend that most people feel the same way about a pet than about a random animal, less so about what they regard as food. I mean, take a look around! I hope I don't need to expand on this. We are not speaking about how we think people should feel but how they actually feel.
3. There are more aspects to the issue besides animal suffering vs (human health issues due to) GHG emissions, and people vary on their values related to these issues. The numbers you do in your post are partial and you don't give any reasoning on why you presumably think that the other aspects of the issue are less relevant and therefore you don't bother to quantify/compare them. 

Maybe you are addressing exclusively EAs. Then, of course, your assertion on people's preferences is much more accurate. Still, 100% values-dependent and with more relevant aspects besides pain and emissions.

I understand you think I am overconfident about my views, but I want the post to represent these, and I worry the updates you suggested would made it sound like I am less confident than what I actually am.

It is not an issue about expressed confidence but about not acknowledging that your conclusions are values-dependent. For example, "given my values I am 100% confident that (...), plus I believe that most people (in EA) have similar enough values to mine so that these conclusions apply 100% to them too" expresses total confidence in your views while acknowledges that your conclusions are not universal but values-dependent, so it reflects reality more accurately.

In this line, it is very good that at the end of your post you acknowledge the possible health issues and give people worried about this the option to go in the direction to vegan/vegetarian. Note that this is a veiled acknowledgement that more aspects can play a significant role in your conclusions and that these depend on one's values. Let's make it explicit!

I am sorry but I really don't like and don't find useful at all these kind of posts. Besides, I thought the aim of this forum is giving information, not advocating. Although this post provides some very good calculations and information, it misses the key point --it is 100% value-dependent-- and the post is plain advocacy. I'm not against the bottom line, I'm really not decided in this topic (though I tend to lean to the contrary position), but it is really uncomfortable (? probably not the word I'm searching for) to see this here.

"Replacing chicken meat with beef or pork is better than the reverse". Well, as said above, this is so if one holds your values or similar ones all else equal. You don't say how much pain would you agree to exchange for how much CO2. I find it totally understandable, I don't think anyone can give a good answer for their thresholds --I certainly don't have one for mine-- but this makes the whole post bullshit. "I think this, here are some not complete calculations that I say support thinking this, but if the calculations were different I state no reason to make anyone think I would stop thinking this. Don't you think that these calculations support this?"

You are not sure whether wild animal's lives are worth living, so you don't account for land. Well, it is alright, but it is again a values thing. In addition, we actually do know that the diversity and size of natural ecosystems are important not only for the "natural" world, also for us humans, so it should be accounted for. Health effects are mentioned, great. But not quantified and compared as well.

Making numbers can be useful to get the sense of problems, but reaching a conclusion through numbers is only possible if one is able to make all the numbers needed with enough accuracy. It is no problem to give rough estimates, of course, but they carry large errors and errors compound, so pretty soon conclusions cannot be based solely on making numbers over rough estimates. In addition, rough estimates are usually values-based, so why not just state the values? One can very well argue "this rough estimate seems to me larger than this other rough estimate and so on, and based on my values, then, this conclusion follows". Calculations can aid such comparisons. But your argumentation is not like this at all.

Compare the paragraph "Do you feel like the above negative effects (...) justify (...)? I do not" to "Based on my values the results of these quick calculations do not seem to justify (...)". It reads very different. And subsequently you give additional information relevant for whether or not the thing is justified! How can anyone decide if something is justified before having all the relevant information?

This post seems like just a rationalisation of your values. So, better plainly state what you feel, give arguments and uncertainties, maybe support some of those arguments with some calculations, but do not focus on calculations and, particularly, do not pretend that the solution follows from those calculations. And, please, acknowledge that this is a values thing. You have yours, I have mine, and everybody has theirs.

I don't have any intention to be harsh with you or this post --sorry if I've been too direct, I already spent way too much time writing to polish the text. I just tried to be comprehensive because these issues are quite common in this forum, and I really think they are harmful. Seeing the reality is the first step needed to be able to change it and numbers can put a scientific and objective gloss on things that are completely or mostly values-led. Let's avoid it or/and be clear with what we do!

[Edit: And please, for those of you who don't agree with the comment, spell out your disagreement instead of downvoting to hide it. A couple of sentences suffice.]

"Both Lions and mosquitoes are enemies" But enemies can have moral value! [Sorry, I haven't read your LW post, yet]

There is no universal value -not even moral value- scale. Each person has his/her own. If the mosquitoes cannot chose/feel, they don't have moral value for you. Other people may value life for its own sake.

I think I lean close to your values, giving moral value to whatever can feel. But this is mostly a rationalisation. I have no clue which animals or other living beings can feel and which don't (and, even we are scientifically improving in this regard, we cannot really know, at least for now) and still, I give or not give moral value to  living beings. In addition, what these living beings do to me or to others (in an absolutely broad sense of others), how they look, how they move, etc. affect my moral judgement, the moral value I give them.

But where I wanted to go: you are going way too fast to determine that mosquitoes cannot feel. What is the relation between being able to chose or not and being able feel? Is a carnivore like a lion able to chose not to eat other animals? Is it able to feel? I think the answers for the lion are clear and make your argument fail.

I don't follow you. When did I give personhood to mosquitos?

It is not mosquitoes who kill us, though. 

Mosquitos do not really chose to try to seal your blood, do they?

Being net negative or positive and how much just depends on the values of whoever does this assessment. So I don't think such statements are useful. These EAs may be net negative given your values. Probably much less so given their values.

I don't think it is useful or helpful to speak in general terms about how positive/negative the (expected) value of something is. There is no universal way to value stuff.