Pretense is the nonsense that defense is a fence.
Firstly, intelligence isn't relative
Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?
Secondly, you didn't address the sentiment of his question: is the fact that animals are less intelligent than humans
As I said, relative intelligence is not the factor of greatest importance. And it is not a moral question, either, since we cannot murder other animals animals, only humans.
It is a matter of morality because that was the question asked.
That would imply that even illogical questions have morality. Nonsense. That is not a given. A claim, yes, but not all claims are valid, are they?
This is a naturalistic fallacy in that you assume our canine teeth, due to evolutionary design, must be used to tear flesh.
Your claim of a naturalist fallacy is, itself, fallacious. You ignore that a tool designed for a specific purpose can only be used for the designed purpose. So, people who use a screwdriver as a stirring stick for a screwdriver cocktail are fallacious? No, just innovative.
Unless you can demonstrate harm in not using canine teeth in such a way, it is entirely possible to not use those canine teeth for such a use, especially when said usage demands harm to animals.
I can certainly have my canines removed to put small molars in their place, but such would be inefficient relative to cost and the extended time required to fully masticate meat. And, you cannot say the animal is aware of being harmed to use it as a food source. You're going to have to obtain that testimony from the animal. Harm is a self-generated claim. Good luck with that.
you haven't demonstrated that said enzyme must be used
I cannot designate which enzyme in my saliva can be turned off. Can you do so to stop the digestion of vegetable matter if I claim a carnivor's right to demand an end to eating vegetables? And what of the harm done to vegetables you claim is the right of animals to claim as a morally superior position? Are not vegetables also living things?
Merely stating that "morality has no nexus with meat-eating" doesn't make it so -- you need to demonstrate this conclusion through argumentation.
You first. You're the one claiming moral superiority of eating only vegetation. I'm claiming morality has naught to do with humans eating anything but other humans. Your prior claim takes timely precedent. Je vous en pris.
Nonsense. Animal abuse incurs criminal penalties in the developed parts of the world. Albeit, currently, not all animals have the fortune of this protection.
Animal abuse is an entirely different matter than killing an animal with the express purpose of eating it. Do you not pick a living carrot from the ground with the express purpose of eating it? Why should your morality be the deciding factor? We're both doing the same thing to living things.
Furthermore, if you have no moral qualms with using a shovel to smack a dog until you crush its skull
But I do have moral qualms about hitting a dog with a shovel to crush its skull. I would use the best weapon to kill the dog, but only do so to eat it. My purpose is not abuse, but specifically to eat, and the two are entirely different purposes. By the way, I have eaten dog meat in China. Not bad, really. But you're not the best judge of that. I've also eaten roasted locusts. Roasted peppers are very good, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? As I said, Ma gavte la nada: Please remove the cork. The cork that is a pretense.
