Vegetarianism, in Europe at least, requires one to be open to a different diet than what one is used to, usually going against social and cultural norms due to a personal conviction that is reached by analysis and reflection, while veganism brings that to the extreme
Everyone has different ethical frameworks. The label of "extreme" is arbitrary, not objective. I'm sure you would never rape or murder someone. Does that make you an extremist? You don't think it's OK to occasionally rape and murder people right? Vegans' ethical framework is that the murder of animals is unacceptable, and so there is no middle ground. That's not extremism, it's a different framework. To frame it as a spectrum is a misunderstanding.
Pretty sure vegetarians and vegans both are against the killing of animals, so don't know what you are trying to argue. And yes it is very much a spectrum that (very roughly, and not exclusively) goes from: cannibalism -> eating animals -> eating animal derived products -> eating only vegetables and fruit -> eating only vegetable and fruit that fell to the ground without being picked.
And I find it ironic in that you are kind of proving the point, by painting it as a black and white issue. This is what the "extremism" means to me. Another form of that spectrum could be: Endangered species -> wild animals -> farmed animals. Do you think it would be as wrong to kill the last specimens of an animal that is about to go extinct as it would be to kill an animal that has been bred over thousands of years and could probably not survive in the wild on its own? While i am against all killing, when presented with this choice the answer is pretty clear to me.
And you even made a similar distinction yourself in another comment here:
>I hope people say the same about all animals, but especially mammals.
