Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>
> Are lions, sharks, and cats immoral because they harm
>> and kill other animals, even humans, for food? Some even "play with"
>> or torture their prey before it dies, for their amusement. Are they
>> "evil", or naturally dumb, greedy, angry, and|or uncouth? Do humans
>> hunt and kill other animals better than other animals? Why aren't you
>> against the abuse of animals by the millions of other animals?

> Now you've done it! Glorfindel...has a ready answer for this:
> sharks, lions and other predatory animals aren't moral agents;
> they're moral patients, and can't be held to the same standard.

Very good, Lief. I see you're learning.

<snip>

> telling humans they have a moral obligation not to
> eat animals, based on something that is unique to their species, is
> inherently and outrageously speciesist.

Speciesism is judging animals on the basis of *irrelevant*
qualities. A status as a moral agent is not an irrelevant
quality to judge moral/ethical actions.

<snip>

>> "companion animals" isn't even English.

It certainly isn't any other language. It refers to 1)animals
(non-human) who have a status primarily as 2)companions to
humans. It's a standard construction in English, like "fence
post" or "delivery wagon" or "course textbook" and so on.

<snip>