I use similar analogies to show that humans are nothing more than animals. Freud showed that we're mostly free-flowing fools acting on our unconscious. Blah blah. So? If you refuting the hierarchy argument to disallow people from eating people (because criminals are people too, and the insane are people too, though we treat them differently and strip them of their rights, thereby rendering them 'inhuman'), what basis is your eating of animals? Comes back to my 'because we can and who's the one cutting them up? Us, not them' argument, which isn't an argument per se, obviously.

The difficulty in arguing this is the morals don't allow it. Harm principle logic already shows that killing plants is wrong, same with animals. E_A's logic already shows that I'm perfectly able to kill plants that feel nothing yet die anyway, but plants serve human goals and ends and therefore unlike animals, we ought to preserve plants but not eat animals to fuel human goals and ends (see the hypocrisy?). Or maybe there's an unspoken premise that things that don't feel pain don't deserve moral consideration.

My original conclusion was that I was a monster for eating, and it's still the most simple solution. Sure it doesn't coincide with the 'vegans and vegetarians are better than everybody else and they have to tell us about it' argument, but morals was never about making you feel good.

Oh wait.