Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[simplexity]

Wow, someone took what I said and completely stretched it out of proportion. Yes social skills and intelligence are part of why I think I don't have an ethical right to treat other animals as lower forms of "life". There is also the fact that even if a person has lost mental capabilities they are still part of a species which is intelligent and social and still have the potential. Really it all comes down to the potential to be intelligent, social, and self aware(this being the key phrase) of their own suffering. Even if an animal "feels" pain how can it really feel anything without being self aware. Without self awareness it is only a simple reaction to stimuli. That is all and therefore there is no pain, at least not the kind you are talking about. Sentience. I have to say sentience is probably the most important factor in everything, although breaking this down into simple rules is a very complicated thing to do, not to mention the fact it is very difficult to tell if an animal is self aware. It could still be disputed whether a cat has sentience, but I am sure they do.

Just because I left something out of my previous statement does not mean I automatically believe everything else is correct and ethical. What logical fallacy is this?

And yes I do like bacon. Thanks for repeating. This was not part of my argument. It was just a simple statement since well, I really like bacon...