: : :: 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.
SDF: Oh, come on, NJ, just come out and say he's wrong, challenge him! After all, the human race is responsible for the sort of global ecological devastation that will mark the end of a geological era, comparable to that which occurred the end of the Cretaceous Era 65 million years ago, that is, if there are any humans left to observe this fact when it's finished occurring, that is to say, in some distant future when I am dead. This hardly marks humanity as "superior".
What it does say, however, is that the human species did produce an individual that it named Charles Darwin, and who warned us near the beginning of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES that species that were too successful at existence within a niche ecology (as human beings are) were in danger of overpopulating their niches, and dying en masse as a result of having depopulated their food chains. And then, we might observe, the human species ignored the possibility that Darwin's warning might apply to THEM. Previous civilizations (the Romans, the Mayas) have collapsed due to ecological overexploitation, but none so spectacularly as the one on Easter Island, which stands as an example for us all...
For humans, being the most versatile and successful animal of such a body size (ants may be more versatile, and furthermore have a bigger brain-to-body ratio than humans), have up to today overpopulated every niche they could possibly overpopulate. It is only through human intelligence that humanity has defied Darwin's warning, for now. Nevertheless the possibility that humanity could exploit itself to death, soon, remains a significant one.
: 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.
SDF: The fact that an opinion is a "majority opinion" has no bearing on whether it's true or moral. This is a basic argumentative fallacy that can be read in any standard textbook on argumentation or debate. A majority of Nazis supported genocide. Medieval Europe believed the Earth was flat. So what? Are we to support genocide and believe in a flat Earth on their "majority opinions"?
