Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[simplexity]

Most vertebrates are sentiant by your definition which was 'the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.' This may include fish.

No, this is just not true. Mostly we really just don't know. It has definitely been shown though that most mammals do have some sense of self awareness.

Of course they 'feel' and show preferences to avoid pain and suffering and to seek pleasure. I've given you good evidence which you've ignored. It's even accepted by many countries in Europe and elsewhere through legislation enacted to protect animal welfare. And this is by people who, like you, ant to carry on eating them.

Sure, I have admitted all animals show preferences to avoid pain. This does not mean they are self aware by any means as I described earlier.

"Self awareness is needed for there to be any suffering involved."
Please provide sources for this - where did you get it from? If your measure of self-awareness is the mirror test fine. New born babies cannot pass this test until they are at least 18 months old. Are you saying that a baby is incapable of feeling pain and suffering until it passes the test. Get real! Do you really think that! A new born baby is sentient - it can feel pain and suffer and react to avoid it's source.

How can an animal suffer if it does not know it exists. Really, think about it.

"Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an experience(implying conciousness) of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual."
"Suffering occurs in the lives of sentient beings in numerous manners, and often dramatically."
Wiki Definition, it must be true

Once again you are taking my argument to the level of the individual and exaggerating. There is no need for that. I never said anything about babies. And this test is not the only defining evidence for sentience and once again I never said it was. You really like exaggerating.

So, all the animals that don't pass your mirror test are nothing more than machines. Again, I really can't believe you actually think that. So, by your reckoning, it would be no more morally wrong to squash a coke can than to put a kitten in a microwave and wait for it to explode. Really?

Once again, this test is not the one and only thing which defines sentience. And no, I never said anything about kittens, once again. And yes, if an animal lacks any self awareness, it does nothing more than react.

Taken from definition of a robot:
"It may also have some ability to perceive and absorb data on physical objects, or on its local physical environment, or to process data, or to respond to various stimuli." Note-Perceive is used very loosely in this definition."

Again by your reasoning, those humans (the insane, chronically senile, brain damaged) who do not pass a mirror test are no more than machines? Do with them what you will with no moral objection.

Really!, there is no need to bring this argument here. We are talking about ethics between species, not the social and moral understanding of family and individual values. You cannot win an argument by trying to say your opponent agrees with things they never said which have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Sorry.

There is nothing ridiculous about extending moral considerations to animals. I think IF you try to answer the questions I have put to you, you will begin to see how ridiculous your position is.

If you actually stay within the argument, no there is nothing ridiculous at all. And actually I completely agree with you in pretty much all the rest of the arguments you have made on this board. The only difference is you don't seem to understand the difference between reaction and actual awareness and I am by no means saying I can prove cows are not sentient at this point. Until that point we should treat them as if they are, at least somewhat and try to limit the "suffering". Yes, that is what European countries have done.