Should the US government ban the consumption of meat?

Okay, so basically your argument is that animals should be treated on the same level as people? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I'm gathering.

Well, first off, we are created in God's image, no other species is so that automatically puts us higher than animals and on top of that He said that man is to have dominion over the animals and be good stewards of His Creation. Only humans are capable of creating written languages and learning to communicate in numerous other ways. Only people have self awareness and moral reasoning. No animal species can contemplate and express their thoughts and ideas or execute such principles as selflessness or justice. Animals cannot have compassion, they only rely on instinct. On top of this, what animals have such a complex social system? None at all. No animals have laws and law enforcement, no other establishes government, creates businesses, etc. Humans are vastly superior to all animals in morality, intellect and self-awareness. Also, no offense, but if you think that they're nearly our equals so we shouldn't eat them, tell them to stop eating us. Just saying.

Now, on a political level, I'm a conservative independent and I believe that the government doesn't have the right to ban consumption of meat for everyone. On a personal level, you can do what you want, I'm not arguing that. I myself am actually a flexitarian (or semi-vegetarian if you call it that) but for the government to regulate food of this nature is infringing upon individual rights. There are some acceptable cases of course, like banning the use of unpitted cherries in food because those contain cyanide which is a poison, or right now the government is trying to ban Red 40 in food products because it is capable of causing cancer in children and young adults and has absolutely 0 nutritional value, but many kinds of meat are a healthy, staple food item and meat on the whole is honestly irreplaceable.

You just asked a great question. What about non-binaries? Oh, I know this one, "male and female created He them." As for the "transspecies" you mention, I have not the slightest clue what that means but if you're talking about people who think they're animals, let's not even bother going there because the debate isn't about that and it's not worth wasting time over. As to the second half of that paragraph, there is a hierarchy. Eve was created from Adam for Adam. Her job was to be his helper and in return, he took care of her. To this day, it is customary for the man to be the main breadwinner and the head of the household while the woman takes care of the children and things at home. With the last sentence, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Now, in response to your second claim, YES, we are most certainly superior to animals and therefore have the right to kill them for food or protection. Obviously, this doesn't mean killing for sport but we most certainly are qualified at birth to have dominion over animals. They don't need "respect." Respect is something that's earned. If human babies aren't even born respected, why on earth would some animal need to be respected and revered just because it happened to be born. You mentioned the "dumbness each generation gets one by one." No comment on that one. I would like to ask how you always know exactly what all animals are thinking, telekinesis, psychic abilities? Teach me, please. And by the way, I don't think they "chose" not to talk, but I could be wrong because as you said, you are a very smart dragon. The smartest dragons still couldn't manage to avoid extinction by people with sharp metal sticks though, so maybe humans are just smarter? Think about that one. And it's not even supposed to be offensive, it's just factual. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your choice.

I don't know why you think banning meat would immediately save so many lives, just so you know, we don't eat the ones with rabies and that's a very low percentage anyway. Most people don't eat raccoons or coyotes anyway and those are the two largest carriers of rabies in the US. Honestly, it would probably cost some lives to ban meat consumption until people learned to live without it, not to mention that such drastic and sudden dietary changes are horrible for your body. You have to remember that there isn't just America, there are sooo many cultures and geographical climates around the world and not everybody can just go to the produce section of the grocery store, even in the US. Sure, it might lower the risk of heart disease and cancer but it's not going to save millions of lives, even after generations of people adjusting to the new meat-free lifestyle.

For your final claim, I disagree completely. People can eat whatever they want with very few exceptions. There's laws of course on endangered or threatened species but if you aren't breaking any of those laws then who is to tell you that you can't eat whatever animal is available if you need food. We most certainly can ban some species because we like them better (human rights) but that's not even my point. Why shouldn't the species at the top of the food chain and natural hierarchy not be allowed to exercise the given privileges?

Your first claim is astoundingly absurd so let's skip straight to the next one. It's not being just smart that makes us human, if (and this is physically impossible so don't get any ideas) a gorilla learned to read, write, talk, and drive, it wouldn't be a human now, just an abnormally intelligent gorilla. You're right, there isn't a legal definition to the word human but I think Homo Sapiens will suffice. We all know what we are and what is not us, or so I thought before this debate. How did it go from banning meat to whatever tomfoolery we're now discussing? Anyway, this is from Dictionary.com, "of, relating to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people. human frailty. consisting of people. the human race. of or relating to the social aspect of people. human affairs. sympathetic; humane. a warmly human understanding. a human being. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being." There is a full list of things that separate humans from all animals. Need more?

"Ancient philosopher Aristotle argued that while plants have life and animals have life plus perception, humans possess a rational soul — the ability to reason, deliberate, and act on abstract principles. He also emphasized language as a tool for reasoning and communication, and saw humans as inherently social (“political beings”)" www.deepthinkers.net.

Cognitive and Biological Differences

Modern science identifies several key differences Science ABC+2:

1. Abstract reasoning and problem-solving – Humans can think about concepts not tied to immediate sensory experience (e.g., justice, mathematics) and apply solutions across contexts.
2. Self-awareness and mental time travel – We can reflect on our own thoughts, imagine past events, and plan for the future.
3. Complex, symbolic language – Unlike animal communication, human language is generative, allowing infinite novel sentences, and can refer to absent or hypothetical topics scienceinsights.org.
4. Theory of mind – The ability to attribute beliefs, desires, and intentions to others, enabling nuanced social interaction.
5. Cumulative culture – Knowledge and technology build across generations, with deliberate teaching and innovation, unlike the limited cultural transmission in most animals biologyinsights.com.

If that's not enough, think of it like this, ever seen an animal write a book? Didn't think so. Now, you said humans are selfish and cowards. There's another thing that sets us apart. Animals are literally ONLY selfish because that's how they survive without social contracts, governments and rights like we have. They rely purely on instinct. Even the most intelligent, highly trained dogs cannot fully have their wild instinct bred or trained out of them. As for being cowards, that varies by individual but our species on the whole is not cowardly. How do you think we've settled every inhabitable place on earth and even some uninhabitable places? Such a coward Richard Byrd must have been, or Amerigo Vespucci (after whom this great nation was named).

Now for your final claim, which frankly you should have saved face by keeping to yourself. I don't even know where to begin. Animals deciding to identify as humans and vote, eating vegetables because we don't look like plants, people identifying as animals and losing voter privilege? Not even sure I want to get into this because you're so far off topic but at this point it doesn't matter. Animals cannot vote, plain and simple. Never thought I'd live to see the day when someone suggested that. Do you REALLY, deep DEEP down think that if my turtle says, "hm, I'm a human now," then he can just go to the DMV and register to vote? Just say it out loud a few times and think on what you said. I'm honestly going to stop here because no matter what a member of Homo sapiens claims that they are, they're still human and that's non-negotiable. Besides, who, other than you and a few select online individuals, would want to identify as an animal anyway? How about this proposal? If you can identify as a different gender and exercise the "inherited" privileges, children can identify as adults and exercise those privileges. You want life to be "fair", there you go. By the way, fairness and equality are not the same and in this world they rarely mix.

It's not about being smart, it's mostly about being civilized and having opinions, memories, the ability to improvise and make decisions, etc. but the grounding point of it all is our species. All of that and more (feel like I've responded to the same statement three times) distinguishes people from animals and I actually just drew a very clear line for you. Recall that Homo sapiens = person, not Homo sapiens = not person. It's pretty simple but these days people like to twist the easiest facts and confuse themselves. If animals can sophisticate themselves and therefore become people, why don't crows, which are extremely intelligent and capable of learning to speak, inherit voter rights?

So it has come down to having to define "civilized". Let's see, how about not walking around in the nude for one? Animals don't have a conscience or a soul, hence no morals. Additionally, "thou shalt not steal" does not exist in the animal world but it is engrained in us at birth. You see, we humans, Homo sapiens have a moral compass that no other species has ever had or ever will have. You also said that there is nothing special about human DNA. That is utterly false. Only our DNA supports a massive brain to fill our big heads, complex language skills involving both the vocal tract and the brain, and cumulative culture/social learning, specifically extended childhood development and generational knowledge. If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to make a conclusion, while I also am a firm supporter of the "Golden Rule," I'm exceeding certain this does not mean that the animal kingdom will not one day take revenge on me for eating a salad containing grilled chicken for lunch today.