More fascinating to me in this debate, then the mundane issue of animal sapience, is obzerving how much are you guys hell-bent against the notion of human exceptionalism over animals, basicly thinking people are no better then animals. I'm no psychologist, but I get the feeling that view somehow relates to a diminishd sense of self-vorth. Might do some research on it in fact, vhen I have time.
Now to just single out 2 points, then I'm done vith this debate.
Yes. Humans wuld eat anything, IF they are starving. But from your own argument, animals wuld eat anything even if they have other, healthyer options. That says enogh about human power of decision, over animals, vho can not decide for them-selvs in abstract terms. Big point in favor of non-sapience in animals.
Even if you'd put a monkey in front of a computer screen vith a text on healthy nutrition for monkeys, and even if that monkey vas trained to recognize letters and read... I'l bet you 1000$ it wuldnt mean anything to it, because it lacks our power of self-determination, and lacks even the atention-span to get thru the text at all.
I rest my case.
