Nicholas James on Empathy

The subject is so broad. The perspectives differ. You agree or disagree. Simple. I have read the numerous responses and they all seem to be copies of one another and I find it interesting. Of course, that may have caused me to lose an audience but those who want to continue then follow me. I'm empathic in the way in which I understand why they all seem so bland and repetitive. This is a homework assignment, I mean who actually enjoys homework? Whether you really mean what you're saying or not this is for you.  Bare with me though, my point will reveal itself shortly. Technically, we are all animals and it's an insult for me to read how some of my classmates who I know on a more personal level preach about such empathy for the animals that are on a far lower level of intellect than we are, then treat their fellow humans like their existence is purposeless. If you are offended by my words then the boot must evidently fit but keep reading. I myself do not express empathy to its highest degree for my fellow people therefore I will not preach about how cruel the individuals are that don't express it for creatures more primitive than I. Empathy for animals does not include treating them as a human being would be treated because they are not human (the lower intellect species I mean), but to respect them as an individual "writer" contributing their verse to the all powerful play called life is another story. In my opinion, expendable species that reproduce at a much faster rate than others are well, expendable, to a certain extent. To survive and thrive is the human way and that is what we have been doing since the beginning of man, but that has been at the cost of extinction for several species. This is when we must take a step back and look at the much larger picture and wander what we can do to stop such occurrences. Without the use of animals for our benefit such as consumption, animal testing, protection, etc., we would not be where we are now. For you to disregard that solid fact then that is simply classified as being indenial. Now as a reminder I am not saying lower intellect animals are useless and should be senselessly "juiced" for our benefit. I am saying that it is a metaphorical slap in the face to know you'd have the nerve to even think creatures such as dogs, cats, lions, tigers, and bears should be treated like a person when you can't treat all humans as an individual person. We all read the articles and know how these writers appeal to our logic and emotions. That should not make us want to stop "harming" animals but rather influence us to stop such trivial hobbies such as fishing. It should make us question whether the king of the jungle wants to be confined in a cage, even if that cage is 100mx100m because it is not a jungle. It should make you wander why you're saying things like aquariums are cruel when you know if you got tickets to seaworld you'd be in the front row to see Shamu swim in circles. Let those creatures rule their own domain while we rule ours. Let them contribute their verse. But before you go and worry about whether the pig wanted to be bacon then worry about whether that homeless man wants to be freezing his ass off in the pouring rain while we sit in our heated homes doing things like blogging with our pet dog more cozy than he is. We can be such hypocrites. All of us. If you are offended then so be it. These are facts. I think I've made my point pretty clear. If I haven't then feel free to ask questions but I fail to find interest in involving myself in a response to a counter argument.