Personal experience is still experience, it's up to you to take it seriously in the end.

Just checked out the site. Shouldn't have even posted it.

From my experience, I've found that a lot of feminists will follow a quote like this and agree with it just because, without looking into the situation. Again, I don't see any proof that the majority of feminists agree with this, but it's very safe to assume that a good amount do. There are a lot of feminists that will actually warp their perspective of reality to fit their ideology, so I can only guess that some group of feminists on the internet are agreeing with this on some forum. This is just speculation of course.

But will you hold it against them? You won't forgive them knowing they didn't mean to do it?

I think the apology should be taken as an act of empathy and remorse to the situation. It's the age old way of explaining that you regret the decision you made. Just because some people apologize without meaning it sincerely, isn't an excuse to generalize the term and say it means nothing.

I completely agree. Predators have been hunting other animals since dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and to say it's wrong is to say that nature is wrong. If they abuse the animals then they're dicks and that's not OK, but the only reason western culture finds this inappropriate is because we've become so attached to the species that we see them as more valuable than other species, adopting them as pets and such. Notice, also, that when we purchase a dog we refer to it as "adoption", like a child, but when purchasing say a cow, we "bought" the cow, like merchandise.

What makes you think their instinct isn't to value her cubs more? Look at it this way. In the same scenario, if the mother bear didn't value her cubs, wouldn't her instinct be to look for the next valuable thing? Perhaps water or food, since to animals (including us) it's pretty important for us to eat? I have to agree with Harvard here, I think what he's trying to explain is that all intelligent beings have a sense of value, it's just they don't think of value as currency, because though we think of value and currency as being the same collectively it just isn't true. Value is a general term that can refer to pretty much anything.

I feel as though the opposition in this debate is orbiting around the argument that we as humans are more intelligent or have the potential to benefit more to the planet, then again I didn't read all the arguments so I could be wrong. However, I think, taking into account that our superior intelligence is only to make up for the fact that we have no scales or fur or exceptional strength, allowing us to act on our instincts like other animals do. We're "smart" because we have to be.

But does it make us worth more? I don't think so. I mean why can't a giraffe be worth more because they're taller? Or an elephant be worth more because they're stronger?

And of course we have the potential to benefit the Earth more than other species, since they didn't evolve to have to worry about those factors. They worry about their survival and the survival of their children, that's the basis of the life cycle after all. However, we have the potential to destroy the Earth as well, which is something other species don't do naturally to the extent we do, and I think that cancels our ability to benefit out. So are our lives worth more? I don't believe so, but they aren't worth any less either. We must be equal.