Oops. I felt that the context of the claim "Pets != humans" meant that the commenter was claiming more than just the bare bones of that statement. I interpret

Oops. I felt that the context of the claim "Pets != humans" meant that the commenter was claiming more than just the bare bones of that statement. I interpreted my parent comment as dismissing the grandparent comment by saying that pets are not in the same 'moral class' as humans, without further justification. It was this (probably imaginary, I now realise) distinction that I was trying to provide an alternative point of view for. Sorry for attacking a straw man. I have read Singer, yes.