People in India aren't starving because they refuse to eat cattle. That's like saying people in poor regions of Appalachia are starving because they refuse to eat stray dogs. People in India are starving because the British colonized the subcontinent, used economic force to make farmers grow cash crops that the British could profit off of, and then additionally sold Indians rice at a rate for profit that they couldn't all afford.

I love animals. Always have. All I used to play with as a kid were little plastic animal figurines. Even now, I read books on zoology constantly.

I also love meat. I crave it if I go without it too long. Oh, and guess what? I prefer to slaughter my own meat. I've slaughtered two year-old calves and countless chickens and rabbits. All with my own knives or just my hands. Oh, and I eat bugs sometimes, too. Does that count as meat? Grasshoppers are the best. Real big ones.

Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. If I'm going to eat I feel the most responsible way to do so is to raise animals in a loving environment and come to terms with what I'm going to use them for. It's always a somber moment when I slaughter something, but it's part of life.

I've got a four-year-old son. Never spanked him once. Taught him how to use words and that was as much work as I had to put into discipline. We have conversations about unacceptable behavior, and it's made him an incredible critical thinker who doesn't take shit from anyone who tries to treat him with any less respect than he deserves.

Any punishment that would anger or embarrass an adult does the same for a child. Kids aren't as clueless as parents would often like to think. It was the tradition in the Western world for the last couple thousand years for a husband to physically discipline his wife for pissing him off. Our society has grown out of spousal abuse for the most part and it's considered cowardly and unacceptable. Unfortunately, parents can still get away with mildly abusing their children simply because they want to be traditional and are rarely prepared to expend the amount of time necessary to raise a child. And for whatever reason, it's not okay to hit a child on the face or in the groin, yet hitting a kid on the ass is acceptable. Just because it doesn't do as much physical harm? A body is a body and any violent infliction to the physical body of a conscious being is an emotional detriment. Spanking does nothing but condition children. Discipline is meant to instill values and ethics.

I definitely get pissed off at racists, but they should have every right to express what they believe in the appropriate spaces.

Most racism is implicit in the hegemonic matrix of society. That's where a country like the U.S. needs to direct its energies -- not at individuals who hold racist ideologies but at the actual social structures that leave people underprivileged on the basis of race, class, sex, orientation, spirituality, physical ability, age, etc. We're all supporting a system that oppresses certain groups within society, and we don't treat this as enough of an issue when it comes to elections or endorsement of legislation.

I think the big difference between whatever aesthetic value a peacock finds in another peacock and what a human finds in something like a sunset is that there is a sexual aspect to the relationship between one attractive peacock and another, whereas whatever beauty we find in a sunset is perceived without a sexual impetus... unless you've got a really, uh, unique fetish. That considered, you've gotta ask what evolutionary advantage humans have by being able to find a sunset beautiful, if any advantage exists at all. Maybe our propensity for aesthetic appreciation is merely a consequence of another evolutionary development. And like I said, we just haven't been able to prove beyond a doubt that animals have a consciousness comparable to a human's. Maybe animals are able to perceive more aesthetic value in their surroundings than we can and simply don't need to be as outwardly creative because they have some kind of contentment with just being. Maybe they're superior in that sense. I don't know. I am supporting the view that animals could develop or already have developed human-like consciousness. I'm also saying that when considering the question, humans should be wary not to fall into the trap of thinking that they are superior to other life forms simply because we have more advanced intellectual abilities. I honestly believe that the only thing that truly separates us from animals is our linguistic ability and the consequent abilities that stem from it.

I've never done much research into animals that paint. I've heard of them but never pursued more insight on the phenomenon. That's cool, though, that their keepers feel inspiration prompts them to paint what they do.

Yeah, I'm not saying your post should be logical at all. Perhaps I should have included an emoticon to try to convey the intended tone of voice that would accompany that comment.

Many of them are taken aback. Some reciprocate, though, and we'll refuse to do any favors for one another if the person asking says 'please'.

Being a genius does not mean that you have come up with the same creative solutions as anyone else. And it doesn't mean your experiences have led you to make the same meaning out of life as another person. And it doesn't mean you have talents in the same areas where others have talents. Being a genius really makes you a genius, nothing more. If you're rude to people and never develop normal, fulfilling relationships what's being a genius gonna do for you?

I think your example falls short logically, but in an anecdotal sense, I totally agree -- not that genius status gives you the leeway to be rude, but on the 'please' and 'thank you' thing. I actually demand that my friends never say 'please' to me for anything.

What, exactly, comprises human-like consciousness? A lot of you seem to go straight to human-like intelligence. What about aesthetic appreciation? For all we know, that's a quality specific to humans. No other creature is known to stop to watch a sunset and let it inspire them in their creative work. No other creature, as far as we know, passes allegorical myths to successive generations to help them make meaning of their life experience. And no other creature uses language. (There is animal communication, but it's not language. For an explanation as to why, consult the book Adam's Tongue by Derek Bickerton.)

That being said, we simply haven't been able to find the evidence to suggest that another animal is like us. But we don't even know what really makes us human. Is it our intellectual ability? Creative abilities? Perhaps each species has some alternative consciousness that suits it just as well as our human consciousness suits us, just in different contexts given that every life form fills its own niche.