Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[simplexity]

You have not explained how intelligence and social interaction are relevant to the question of causing unnecessary suffering. To me they seem arbitrary just like skin colour and perhaps chosen by a member of a species that is trying to justify treatment of another species. Again, some animals are more intelligent and more social than some humans (the senile, severely mentally handicapped, new born)

They are relevant because of the fact they determine a species sentience. They determine whether a species is intelligent enough to experience the self awareness of pain. You do not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between the ability of an animal to experience pain and just react and the ability to actually have the understanding the pain which is happening to them and be self aware of the pain. Intelligence and social interaction determines the level of self awareness. The ability of an animal to suffer is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ability of an animal to have a self understanding what they are experiencing is relevant to themselves. We as humans have a self awareness and when we experience pain we do not simply react. We also understand the pain is causing harm to our own self.

Again, you are being arbitrary. It seems you are trying to pick out what you perceive to be human attributes and only offering sanctuary to other animals exhibiting the behaviors you have chosen.

You seem to keep spouting the same word at me again and again. No, I am not necessarily picking human and choosing human attributes. As an animal grows more and more self aware it will at some point have a realization it is not the only self around. This is not just a human attribute but an attribute of sentience.

Arbitrary again. Why do you chose empathy? What if it could be shown that other animals had empathy? What about humans with no empathy?

If it could be shown other animals showed empathy, and it has(Dolphins) than it would be ethically unjustified to kill them. I would consider it murder. As for sociopaths, right now it is irrelevant to bring this down to the level of the individual.

You seem to be contradicting yourself - you have accepted that lots of animals are sentient including cows, pigs, chickens.

Actually, I never accepted that cows, pigs, chickens are sentient. I did accept that humans, dolphins, and some species of primates are. Otherwise it is up for debate.

OK. So now your argument is switching to just looking after your own species regardless of all the other attributes you raised like empathy, social interaction, intelligence. It seems you will switch between whatever argument you want just to preserve your ability to eat meat no matter what even though you concede it is indeed terrible.

Once a species has been classified as sentient, there is no reason to take it further by saying for some reason just because one individual seemingly lacks one of these attributes you have to throw everything out the window. No, that makes everything way too complicated and therefore unethical to do so. No, the same applies to every sentient species. I am not just suddenly just applying everything to humans. My argument has been the same the entire time. The sentience of a SPECIES. Not the individual. Stop changing to how a senile old man seemingly "lacks sentience" and trying to apply it to everything I'm saying. It is irrelevant here.

Again, this seems arbitrary. Surely in a debate about inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering the focus must be on which animals are capable of feeling pain and can suffer and whether it is necessary. What has ego got to do with it.

Ego has everything to do with it as I talked about above.