"That benefit, as I said before, is time and energy. We kill and eat animals, it more quickly provides for us certain nutritional values that we need. We COULD get it from plantlife, but that requires considerations that, quite frankly, are annoying."

Uh, no, actually plants are much more efficient. The body runs best on glucose, and protein is made up of amino acids, and metabolizing those doesn't utilize nearly as much energy, and it produces harmful wastes, like ammonia!

What's easier, picking and eating an apple, or killing a cow?

"And you say "ignorant" like an insult. By definition, though, "unaware" does apply well."

Ignorant DOES mean unaware. I didn't mean it as an insult.

"Oh, and while we're at it, what makes animals so much better than plants that we're allowed to harm the latter even if it's wrong to harm the former?"

Animals feel pain and anguish. That's the difference. They don't function on instinct alone, period. That is a fact.

"You know, comparing animals to children has been so overdone lately. Don't you have any BETTER analogies than between an unintelligent beast that has reached the limit of it's potential, and a being that will one day help shape the world itself?"

Why does it matter that they WILL be more intelligent? You could argue that eventually animals will evolve and become smarter, but no. What matters is that you're justifying their pain via saying they're unintelligent, which is ignorant, frankly.

Why the hell does it matter that children will become intelligent?? So you have a retarded child, who will never assist anyone. The point is that you're arguing it's ok to use those who are weaker and not as smart as we are.

"Just" an animal. Ugh.