Karen Winter admitted she was wrong:
>>>> NOTE: *Brethren*, not animals.
>
>>> Misplaced comma: "the least of these, my Brethren." He's addressing
>>> His brethren, not excluding others.

RESTORE

Ipse dixit, and *WRONG*. Transliterated Greek:
kai apokriqeiV o basileuV erei autoiV amhn legw umin ef oson
epoihsate eni toutwn twn adelfwn mou twn elacistwn emoi
epoihsate

"Elachistos touton mou" means the least of my brothers."

Vulgate:
et respondens rex dicet illis amen dico vobis quamdiu fecistis
uni de his fratribus meis minimis mihi fecistis

"Fratribus meis minimis" means "the least among my brothers," not a term
of address.

None of the English translations I've encountered treat it as a term of
address as you allege.

Douay-Reims:
And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as
long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it
to me.

RSV:
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did
it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Young's Literal:
`And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you,
Inasmuch as ye did [it] to one of these my brethren -- the least
-- to me ye did [it].

NKJV:
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to
you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My
brethren, you did it to Me.'

NASB:
"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to
the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine,
{even} the least {of them,} you did it to Me.'

NIV:
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did
for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

You're wrong, Karen.

END RESTORE

> O.K. -- I'm wrong on that point.

And all the others.

> I'll go with St. Francis in calling animals brothers and sisters

He was wrong about that, and his friars abused that same passage in the
same manner you do. Why don't you instead follow *Christ*?

Jesus helped COMMERCIAL fishermen:
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."

When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)

He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."

His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"

"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37

He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43

Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen -- *commercial*
fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and
when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Why would
he do that if he were an ARA?

Jesus also engaged in commerce with livestock producers:
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16

Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his
disciples partook in the custom of *killing* and *eating* a lamb on Pesach.

Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.

Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44

Mary and Joseph likewise offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus.

Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the
animal rights or "vegan" position. He did things in stark contradiction
to AR and vegan principles.

Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean,
but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended
the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who
think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following
rules like "don't eat animals" and "don't wear animal hides." Worse, you
follow those who make new commands and demand others not do things which
are *permitted* scripturally.

St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not
judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat;
he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain
foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge
people according to what they eat and demand others abstain from certain
foods to be more ethical, holy, etc., when the scriptures make it clear
that those things don't make people ethical or holy.

There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism --
particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world
through your demented proselytization -- is entirely at odds with the
Bible. So is AR, which is a modern philosophy based on pagan principles
which has nothing in common with the Bible or Judeo-Christian culture.

>> There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism.
>
> There is,

There is not one. See above. The Bible itself (1 Tim 4) refers to
restrictions in diet -- including meat -- for spiritual reasons as "a
doctrine of devils."

>>> It is not sinful to eat an egg; it is sinful to kill
>>> a chicken for food without grave need,
>
>> Hunger is a grave need.
>
> But the motive for those who buy chicken or raise them for
> food today is not hunger.

Food is for hunger. Chickens are food. Chickens cure hunger.