: :: You said earlier: "Of course man is superior to animals - by any reasonable definition of the word." Since, based on dictionary definitions it is clear that some qualification is necessary, please qualify your statement, and BACK IT UP.: I don't need or want to qualify my statement, Kevin. It's an opinion I have and that is all.
Earlier you suggested that man is superior "by any reasonable definition." yet when given a set of dictionary definitions of "superiority", you chose not to demonstrate how humanity meets these criteria and other animals do not. Now you are claiming that it's no more than an opinion and thsu dpoesn't ened to be defended? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but an opinion is more credible when it is based on facts, and so far you haven't given any.
In my vieww, there is one good reason for treating humans better than other animals- we are humans, and that';s a basic difference that sets us apart form all other pife forms. We ahve an obligation to defend each other since we are all part of teh same species. But I'm not foolish enough to think that we are "better" iun some OBJECTIVE sense.
: It's also a majority opinion so it's still legal to eat animals.
The question of whether eating meat should be legal has precsiely NOTHING to do with whether humans are superior. I hoenstly don't see the relevance. Are leopards superior to chimpanzees? certainly in terms of intelligence and social behavior chimps are superior, but we still don't begrudge the leopards their portion of meat. Superiority is irrelevant to teh question fo emat eating. And by the way, many religions and secular moral systems would argue with you about man's "superiority".
: My opinion of the superiority of man comes partially from my belief in the Bible as God's word and partially from common sense.
Common sense. i see. Please demonstrate how the superiority of man is so "commonsensical" for thsoe of us who are too thickheaded to grasp it. If you don't can you balme us for not being "converted"?
: You dismiss the Bible and devalue any reference made to it.
Not true. I quote the Bible frequently, and I agree totally with a lot of stuff in it, and especaillay with teh Catholic Church. Jesus very probably was divinely inspired, along with a lot of otehr religious teachers...I certainly don't accept everything in oit as literally true, or as morally sound, if taht's what your asking. i can't imagine doing that- it strikes me as teh worst form of moral weakness and capitulation, abandoning your responsibility to try and find out and do what's right jsut so taht you can conform to an ancient book. I'm sorry, i would never do something like that.
:You also wish to micro-inspect the meaning of words to make your point.
Yes, words should be used in the sense of tehir original meaning, e.g. "communism", "brotehrhood", "selfishness", "Superior", etc.
:So what is to be gained by arguing further? I'll continue to eat meat and do so without the slightest remorse.
: Consensus opinion is law with respect to this issue.
Whose consensus? Are you ignroing the Hindus, Buddhsits, Jains, Rastafarians, and other smaller religions again?
:If you don't like that opinion that's unfortunate but no amount of twisted logic, redefinition or semantics by you is going to change that opinion.
Slavery used to be widely accepted, but a good mixture of industrial pressure, religious agitation, scientific findings and British military intervention managed to change the world's opinion.
