No eyelids???
As Kurt Cobain said in “Something in the way”, “it’s ok to eat fish, because they don’t have any feelings.”
This suggests that old Kurt may have been mistaken, biologist that he was...[bbc.co.uk]
Okay, so we can sort the different flora and fauna by how mature their nervous system is.
Living things like fish are only reactively conscious, and don't feel agony for this reason, although they will flail and make expressions because they have some very small processing of the stimulus. It is nowhere on the level of magnitude of more intelligent animals.
Trying to put one's self in their shoes is mistaken, because their consciousness isn't much better than some human body parts.
Humans have the most mature nervous system on our planet, so they filter everything they react to through their beliefs, voluntary response system, etc. There are a lot more buttons on the console, and there are much more complex reactions in humans because there is a lot more grey matter to deal with, and the brain has other bits of hardware in there.
Now, let's move on to the practical aspect. Why take the time and energy to feel bad for a fish, when there are much more significant things, like work, friends, etc. ? Are we to pretend that the life of a fish was meant for something better than feeding a human?
It's very hard to make the case that another animal besides a human is of more value, since humans seem to be the most capable of stewarding our planet.
You have a typo. It should read "humans seem to be the most capable of DESTROYING our planet". Which, by the way, is every reason why the animals are better suited for life here than humans are. Also, the non-human Earthlings are here for their OWN reasons. We don't own them and we don't have a right to enslave, imprison, exploit, or murder them. I mean, unless your brain and ethics are stuck back in the dark ages.....
All you're doing is playing with the normative-descriptive barrier, and trying to assign a non-existent political context to the language at hand. It's not even remotely worthy of actual consideration. If I say that there is a plant growing somewhere, does it become a point of argumentation, to you?
If you think that the major decisions that humans make are best left to what are even less intelligent than small babies, then fine, but your idea has long been ruled as stupid.
It's clear that you have no interest in actual rational communication, and would rather spout off about your personal sentiments about animals. Maybe you lack a nutrient or something?
Wow. Your pseudo intellectualism is amusing. While my nutrition is fine, I'd much rather lack a nutrient than a heart.