Seanchaidh said:
One could make the case that refusing to draw these lines anywhere-- or somewhere, but absurdly including much of the food supply humans have enjoyed for many thousands of years in the same moral category/status as human beings-- is merely one species of that kind of manipulation.
You could, sure, but I think you'd be wrong.
Humans have also eaten humans for many thousands of years. As far as we can tell, early humans seem to have had absolutely no cultural or moral aversion to eating each other. There is absolutely no reason to decide that human flesh is any less a part of the historical human food supply than animal flesh, it's certainly been around far longer than most of the domesticated livestock which we eat today.
There is no nice, clean "natural" morality which separates us cleanly from animals. Choosing to believe in one may be convenient, but it isn't true. We're all made of meat.
Fortunately, over the past few thousand years we have gradually achieved a greater and greater control over our environment to the point that we have meaningful choices. Unlike our ancestors, we don't need to resort to cannibalism outside of extreme circumstances, and our laws and morality have been built around the idea that cannibalism is a choice. When robbed of the choice by a disaster or famine, people will still do it, but most of the time they don't have to.
This same environmental control now means that people also don't have to eat meat at all. Thus, it does absolutely no favours to pretend that eating animal meat isn't a choice, that we are still bound to the same "food supply" of our ancestors, or that choosing to eat animal meat is somehow any more natural than eating human flesh. They are both things we have surpassed the need for, but can nonetheless choose to do.
I have never said that animals are or should be in the same "moral category" or "status" as humans. I've said that the whole concept of a "moral category" or "status" is a weird human invention which doesn't actually fit reality very well. Of course, without these categories we are still left with certain truths. Animals, even very smart ones, do not have intelligence in the same way we do, but then neither do human babies. We probably shouldn't let animals vote any more than we would let babies vote, but both still exist, both still exhibit intelligence quite independently of our determination of what "species" they are.
It's entirely up to you what you draw from that. I'm not presupposing any kind of outcome. But I really hate these pseudo-dominionist arguments about the natural order of humans and animals. We are not special, as animals go. We were not made in the image of God on the 6th day and granted special divine dispensation to eat everything made on the 4th and 5th day. We evolved from apes who ate whatever they could find and lived in fear of being eaten themselves. We don't have to stay apes forever if we don't want to.
Seanchaidh said:
This is very true. Ultimately, animal rights are a matter of arbitrary human sympathy. When it comes to human beings, the capacity for both solidarity and for fighting back is far more salient.
Sure I guess, but humans are also pretty objectively terrible at solidarity. Often, human rights also come down to a matter of arbitrary sympathy, which is why marginalised groups are constantly required to make themselves amenable to their oppressors in the hopes of eliciting sympathy.
If solidarity only comes with the explicit expectation that entering into solidarity will benefit you down the line, then it's pretty useless.