[gefriertrockner]

Your point doesn't touch my argument. I'm saying if you are claiming superiority over other animals, you can also claim superiority over weaker humans, for the same reasons, with the same results.

By the way, you can't have a proper conversation with someone, if you don't speak the same language.

[cortesoft]

Even if someone doesn't speak the same language, we can communicate in a way that animals simply can't. I think the fact that different civilizations have been able to contact each other throughout history, and even when not speaking the same language at all, establish relations shows that it isnt just that we don't speak animal languages, but that they are fundamentally different in their ability to communicate.

To answer your other argument, there is a different fundamental level of 'superiority' over animals that you could never argue for over humans. Even the most 'primitive' of civilizations have been able to articulate their resistance to oppressors in a way no animal has ever even come close to doing. Again, the orders of magnitude difference between humans and animals makes it a completely different comparison than between humans and 'weaker' humans. It is insulting to humans to imply it is the same thing.

[hdivider]

FWIW: I think your point is highly insightful. Very deep, and I'll be thinking about it for quite some time! It all comes from the same psychological place -- reminds me of autocracy vs democracy. In one, presumed superiority of the autocrat, leading to apparently justified mistreatment of all others. In the other, presumed equality of all, leading to agreed-upon consequences if others are mistreated.