Me? Because I would never give my life to save some cat. NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nicely said.

There are a lot of comments posted on this forum that aren't based on any research at all!
If you're looking for a moral argument, try reading Alastair Norcross's "Puppies, Pigs and People" and Carl Cohen's "A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism."
If you're looking for personal reasons to become a vegetarian, Peta has some good articles about the negative effects of eating animals.
I hope that helps.

Well, he or she is human; therefore, he or she is biased towards his or her own kind. It's natural (now, I'll say this preemptively because I know how much you love to twist around words: natural =/= right) to tend for one's own. Our ancestors would likely have not survived if they valued the life of a tasty, meaty boar as much as they for the lives of their children.

Ah, so our sophisticated intelligence gives us the right to kill animals. Why stop there? I consider myself more intelligent than many people, so hey, I should kill them. In fact, other great apes share human baby intelligence. You know what that means? We should kill babies by your logic, too! What infallible rhetoric you produced there. And don't say we don't eat other apes because for one, some humans have/do, and two, it would be an arbitrary line to draw that would just be done for the purposes of your argument.

I said multiple times that I'm for assuming that human life is more important than anything else. I also said that I like the idea, and that I benefit from it. My sole point in this whole thread has just been to say that we no reason to believe that our lives are superior to anything else, or that I have not seen a convincing argument in favour of that assumption.

Because we recognize that other humans - our own kind - have an intrinsic value and worth in our knowledge and power that is not matched by animals.

1) Irrelevant question. If my answer is yes, then that would mean it would also make sense for me to believe that is acceptable for a human to kill a non-human animal. If my answer is no, then there's really no suggestion as to where I stand. My stance in that case would depend on how much I value human life relative to non-human animal life.

2) How come I knew you were going to say something along those lines? What's really pathetic is that I even said that because something is innate to humans doesn't mean that that thing is morally acceptable. You asked why do people not care about the suffering of animals, not why people don't find it immoral to kill animals. Caring is mostly emotional and, therefore, if you ask me why I don't care about something, I don't need to provide a rational answer.

I don't find it rational to kill a chicken to provide me with a tasty meal, but I care much more for a tasty meal than for the life of a chicken that I've never seen alive, so it doesn't bother me when I eat chicken. I'd say that is the case for most people.

My post was deleted, so I'll explain my previous post again.

I was being quite polemical, so here's a nicer way of putting it. Qq argued that we don't even need to ask the question, because we can't compare humans to other animals in the first place. ARMY101 pointed out that humans are animals, and so that argument went down the drain. Qq responded that that was true, but our greater intelligence gives us the right to kill other animals. Here's his argument and why I feel it is not one we want to adopt.

1. We have the right to kill animals less intelligent than the average human adult (you cannot just say "We have the right to kill animals", because we are animals too. If you say "the right to kill other, non-human animals," then you are assuming what I've said people are this whole time, that we believe our lives to take precedence in all ethical questions).

2. Farm animals are less intelligent than the average human adult.

3. Therefore, we have the right to kill farm animals.

My problem is with point 1. The arguments that could be drawn out are against our morals. For example, since point 1 includes humans (as we are animals too), you cannot separate humans from the consequences point 1 leads to. One consequence is that any human less intelligent than the average human adult can be killed. It also allows that human babies be killed, for they are not as intelligent as the average adult human. I say average adult human because there is no universal level of human intelligence; some are clever, some aren't, and some are somewhat.

But I can already hear people saying, "Yes, but you just can't compare humans to other animals" or, "True, though we need to eat these animals to survive." Both these responses assume their is something intrinsically better about being human, and the second is also flawed since, as others have pointed out, a vegetarian lifestyle is feasible.

Yes, this is not the case at the majority of farms, at least from what I have seen and heard.
And chickens aren't stomped, they are kicked.

Really? So we could feel sad when we cut the grass? When a tree is cut down? When a flower is picked and given to someone as a gift?

Give me a break!