Guys, lets not insult each other, it'll just get the thread closed.

"It's called imperical observation. Watch with eyes unfettered by emotional attachments, with the cold logic that humanity alone can master, and it's surprisingly easy. They are slaves to their impulses, the closest thing they have to "freedom" is deciding WHICH impulse to follow right then. They cannot plan, they cannot build, they cannot design. They exist, and follow their path as predestined, nothing more."

Well, seeing as I've taken a couple animal behaviour courses, I have done studies with "cold logic that humanity alone can master", and yes, I still believe you're very wrong. Just because animals probably don't think like we do doesn't make them only machines, and saying that all they do is follow impulses, and that they can't plan or design is plain inaccurate. They use tools. They build homes. They learn. Many can differentiate between right and wrong (obviously very different from ours). They have complex social structures. I just can't say enough about how wrong that is.

"I've been more than respectful up to (but clearly not including) this point."

No, I really don't think you have, but moving right along.

"1. Humans are (clearly, I think) the highest form of life. We are easily best in every way that can be measured and is applicable to this discussion. And a considerable number that aren't."

We're smarter. That's the only way we're better.

"2. This gives us privileges. Also a fairly self-evident statement.
3. This includes using inferior life to our benefit."
I disagree with this. If I'm stronger and smarter than you, does that mean I have privilages over you? Is it then ok for me to use you as a slave? I think it's just terrible to think like that. I don't think it's self-evident at all. Just because we can doesn't mean it's right or that we should. I really don't understand why you think it gives us privilages.


"4. Abusing this privilege is not only wrong, it's dangerous. We should be responsible and intelligent about our choices, because resources are finite."

This is good, but not reality, sadly enough.

"5. Killing for food is not an abuse of our privileges, in fact, it's the closest one to nature we have.
6. Excessive, unnecessary cruelty IS abuse"

I believe number 5 is number 6 for the simple reason that animals feel pain, and DO experience a great deal of long-term emotional trauma and stress, and because we don't need to kill them to live.

"7. Incidental harm caused is NOT abuse"

If we know it's happening it is.

"9. When reasonable controls are held, it's actually to the benefit of both us AND the species of animals that we use. We protect them, they feed us. Symbiosis is a beautiful thing. True, it royally screws a lot of individual members, but the overall cost/benefits to the species are quite favorable."

But we don't only use a couple, when we use a species we tend to enslave it completely, and destroy everything natural they had, and ultimately, kill them all. That is NOT symbiosis, period. Maybe that's your ideal, but that is FAR from the reality.

My basic stance is really simple. It's wrong to cause unnecessary pain. We can live without meat. Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

Another argument you didn't address was how poor eating meat is for the economy, and how it isn't at all the easiest way to live.

I like how you ask me to point out any arguments you missed, and then ignored me when I did. I mean, you really seem to reply to one of several of my arguments, ignore the rest, and conclude that you're right. That's pretty frustrating.