Francione - Why is Michael Vick Different than Meat Eaters?

I think the crux of the matter is whether or not it is morally wrong to kill, experiment on and misuse animals . If it is immoral to kill animals then making it illegal would seem to be the right thing to do regardless of the populations sentiments. If the majority of a population were in favor of killing and eating infants then ending that practice, even by legislation, would seem to be the right thing to do. It would seem that both situations are analogous.

Using intelligence as a justification of regardin our interests as better than animals runs into problems. For one there is no universal standard of intelligence among humans. If being smarter than something else allows you to ignore its interests, then don't we allow smart human beings to kill and enslave less intelligent humans. For example Stephen Hawking is many times smarter than I am so why shouldn't he be able to use me to satisy his own interests. Perhaps you can respond by creating some [very likely arbitrary] level of intelligence that matters. This also runs into considerable problems as there are animals that are more intelligent than some people. For example infants and some mentally retarded people. For example the pig has intelligence roughly equal to a three year old child. If it is ok to kill and enslave the pig then why cant we do the same to young children and the mentally retarded? If intelligence is all that matters then there would be no reason other than compassion not to.

I never hid my "agenda." I have stated clearly from the outset that I support animal rights . I have tried (and, apparently, failed) to help you understand the concept, which not even Newkirk and Pacelle seem to fully grasp. Of the three you mentioned, only Francione understands the demands of abolishing institutionalized animal exploitation. I strongly recommend you read his book, Introduction to Animal Rights, as I'm too busy to go around in circles with you. If you still think I equate humans and animals , you haven't even been reading what I wrote. While we are morally obligated to give the like interests of nonhumans equal consideration with our own, that does not mean that they are the *same*.

I will continue *educating* people about animal rights and veganism (and continue to oppose fire bombing anyone or anything), and people will continue to choose for themselves whether to continue harming animals or to go vegan. Perhaps I will have some small impact in forming a genuine animal rights movement in this country. But, for the day that Congress abolishes the property status of animals, effectively "forcing" veganism on the citizens of this country, that is out of my hands. As you point out, this is *still* the USA, and the authority to pass laws rests in their hands.

Anyway, that wraps it up for me. There's only so many times I can attempt to have a sane conversation with someone who refuses to listen and understand.