Nice, long rant you got there, Mag
I see what you mean, your point trascends validness, you are right etc, etc.
But have you considered that "superiority" can mean a whole lot of things? We are superior to animals in the sense that we are more intelligent, for example. That at least you *can't* argue against. Does this give us the "right" to do what we want with animals?
The answer is as far from "yes" as it is "no". The concept of right and wrong was concieved of by us, the humans, and animals do not understand "right and wrong". So if we kill an animal, they are *incapable* of thinking that we are heartless monsters. So from a human point of view we are heartless monsters if we beat a kitty to death, but the kitty won't understand this. I don't know how intelligent a kitty is, but it would most likely think we are a predator. One who is quite weak, having to actually beat a kitty to death, but it wouldn't think of us as evil, any less than a gazelle thinks ill of the lion trying to bite it's throat off. The real difference here is that the lion will eat the gazelle, whereas I doubt a human would eat a bloody, beaten kitty.
So do you have the right to do something just because you can? Yes, you do! However, it's not about right and wrong, it's about what is sensible and what is just plain dumb. Beating a kitty to death would be the latter, unless you were planning to eat it. We humans are odd creatures, aren't we? Most would consider it wrong to beat a kitty to death and eat it even if they were starving! If I was millions of miles from civilasation, in, let's say an artctic wasteland, and came across a kitty, I would beat it to death and eat it when I got hungry. It would be sheer idiocy to try to keep the kitty alive as well as yourself. Sooner or later you'd both starve, while I with the kitty in my belly would live longer, and thus have a greater chance of surviving. Am I a horrible person for this? By human standards, I am, but as we've already stated, humanity isn't all that great.
So more on superiority... if you are physically superior to someone then, yes you ARE better than them. Lots of animals fight for the right to be the leader of a pack, and the leader has to be the best individual so that the offspring can be as strong as possible among those animals that allow only the leader to get any women (eg. Lions and most apes) . Of course, among humans this has been turned into something amusing that weaker individuals look at and admire. I am, of course, talking about sports. Among humans, too, it is undeniable that those with physical prowess have a much easier time at attracting the ladies. Same principle.
So is sports wrong, then? Because isn't that the same thing? The strong defeateing the weak? The physically superior boxer beating up the weaker one,
just because he can? It was this very realization that years ago stopped me watching sports
So, that's my opinion on this matter... hope ya don't get too mad
