That said...this was a great response.

There is nothing extreme or radical in her position. It is simple and elegant. The last two sentences spell it out in case any of you anti vegans out there want to hate. (Why is it always the anti vegans that are so pompus and arrogant when defining vegans? I digress). You can disagree with Isa's argument, but not her logic. Her logic is sound. She does not draw examples from unobservable belief systems, quite the contrary. She use the arguments modern Ethyology has been positing for years. Animals are sentient creatures that have rich emotional and intellectual lives that is observable, predictable, replicable, and can be verified by other researchers.

Moreover, Isa has argued for animals rationally, not emotionally or spiritually. She has defined her argument clearly and stated it quite simply. She did not side step the argument by bringing in factors that first had to be accepted as fact when only faith was offered as a support. So you may not agree with her position but you have to admit, so far she has all but curbstomped Charles' argument.